Money Advice Trust
Debt Advice Channel
Strategy Research
Volume two – The potential for
channel shift
Anna Ellison and Claire Whyley
1
Money Advice Trust
Debt Advice Channel Strategy Research
Executive summary
Attitudes to remote channels
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Channel preference is often simply a matter of personal comfort, skills and
experience.
Remote channels are seen as offering important advantages including greater
accessibility and convenience and, importantly, anonymity.
Almost six in ten (57%) debt advice clients value face-to-face contact, but more
(74%), value the anonymity of a phone call for debt advice.
Discomfort with remote channels, especially online, is often a matter of personal
capacity and skills or adverse “customer service” experience.
Misconceptions about the potential of remote channels are widespread among for
those with little experience of them, so that potential debt advice clients often
approach remote channels with little understanding of what remote channels can
offer. As a result, remote channels can be seen as less suited to serious or
complex issues requiring professional expertise or personal support.
Those who have experienced the use of remote channels in emotional or other
crisis situations are largely positive about their experiences and outcomes.
Around a third of clients look to debt advice for a full service in which the advisers
takes on responsibility for dealing with creditors and paperwork. More clients
(46%) feel that the adviser took on this responsibility in the event than appear to
have wanted this approach. Face-to-face clients are a little more likely to want
advisers to take on responsibility, reflecting the greater incidence of complex and
late stage problems as well as lower levels of educational attainment.
The debt advice client population segments into four “channel affinity” segments
in terms of their channel and service needs. One of these, the “Affinity face-toface” segment, representing 41% of the total, has a majority preference (76%) for
face-to-face delivery.
Some 20% of the debt advice client population are “Channel indifferent” having
no channel preference. There are two “Channel ambivalent” segments, one low
income, representing 29%, and one smaller high income segment, representing
10% of debt advice clients. Both the “Channel ambivalent” segments source debt
advice via the internet and are heavily phone-biased in terms of channel use.
The “Affinity face-to-face” segment is largely served face-to-face in line with
preference. In all the other segments, use of face-to-face channels is
disproportionately high compared to the channel’s share of channel preference.
The overall picture is of a relatively high degree of openness to remote channels,
including among those with a preference for face-to-face, and of face-to-face
channels being over-used relative to demand and channel preference.
Vulnerable consumers
•
One of the key concerns in developing channel strategy is to understand the
scale of vulnerability and the issues arising for vulnerable clients.
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
To inform discussion, we offer six alternative definitions of vulnerable clients
based on different configurations of a range of vulnerability factors, low income,
lack of educational attainment and the seriousness and urgency of debt.
The vulnerable groups arising from these various more or less tightly drawn
definitions vary from 18% to 66% of all debt advice clients.
Definitions based on low income do not capture those likely to be in greatest
need of support and specialist skills as effectively as definitions based primarily
on vulnerability factors.
Patterns of channel use for vulnerable clients do not differ significantly from debt
advice clients more widely.
Vulnerable clients are more likely to use the face-to-face channel, in line with use
by those with the most urgent debt more widely, but vulnerable clients are being
served effectively in all channels.
Vulnerable clients appear to bring similar expectations and priorities to debt
advice as other clients. They experience similar quality of service and similar
outcomes, both hard and soft, and are equally satisfied with advice delivery.
There is no significant channel variation in this pattern and little difference also
between the various vulnerable groups.
The potential for channel shift
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The key factors in achieving a channel shift are not necessarily channel specific
but rather rest on factors such as the skill and professionalism of the adviser, and
the integrity and reputation of the advice provider.
All channels need to offer personalised advice tailored to client circumstances,
consistency of contact and checks to ensure that clients understand
recommendations and can act on them.
Speed, convenience, “real-time” responses and reassurance on the practical
aspects of handling paperwork are also important.
Eight in ten clients would feel comfortable with debt advice delivered by phone if
they were confident it was independent, professional and personalised. This is
true also of seven in ten face-to-face clients and of those with a strong expressed
preference for face-to-face.
There would appear significant potential also to increase the use of online
channels. The appetite is less for a stand-alone channel than one which is linked
to personalised phone and email advice where required.
Online services require a degree of access to expert telephone support if people
are to have confidence in using them.
While there is a high degree of cross-over between those willing to use phone
and online channels, there is also significant resistance to shifting online among
those now using, and those willing to use, phone channels.
Overall, 20% more clients are using face-to-face than actively want to do so, 1
with use disproportionate to demand and need highest in the “Channel
Indifferent” and “High income channel ambivalent” segments, in which use
exceeds need by a factor of three and almost two times respectively. These
segments would seem the appropriate early-stage targets for channel shift.
Active resistance to channel shift (being very or quite uncomfortable with the
idea) is low but can be deeply felt, at 12% for phone and 22% for online, but
varies considerably between segments. One in five of the “Affinity face-to-face”
1
I.e. 20% more debt advice clients are using face-to-face channels than actively express a preference
for face-to-face delivery.
3
•
•
•
•
•
segment but just 2% of the “Channel indifferent” are resistant to phone, with 28%
and 5% of the same segments being resistant to online.
A key focus of channel strategy must be the protection of face-to-face services
for vulnerable clients who need it and facilitation of access to, and effective use
of, remote channels for vulnerable clients who want or need to be served
remotely.
Digital exclusion (having no access to the internet and/or reliance on a PAYG
phone) is an issue for 25% of debt advice clients in the lowest income decile and
for 15% of those defined as being vulnerable on the basis of exhibiting at least
one of a range of vulnerability factors, 2 which clearly precludes the potential for a
shift to remote channels for these clients.
There is however little difference between the variously defined vulnerable client
groups and other debt advice clients in their openness to remote channels and
attitudes to potential channel shift.
Vulnerable groups appear also to be over-served in the face-to-face channel
relative to their channel preference, with over-representation highest (at 40%)
among those with a range of vulnerability factors but in line with all debt advice
clients (at 20%) for those on the lowest incomes.
Remote channels appear to have slightly greater appeal for those with the most
urgent and serious debt and for those with a range of vulnerability factors
compared to those on the lowest incomes.
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
•
•
The debt advice sector has been highly effective in delivering positive outcomes
for clients, delivering high standards of customer experience and outstanding
levels of satisfaction.
These results have been achieved across all channels with little significant
variation in performance between channels, once differences in client profiles are
allowed for.
Vulnerable clients and serous and urgent debt have been disproportionately
served in the face-to-face channel but all channels are serving these client
groups effectively and achieving similar outcomes.
It is clear that current channel configuration is primarily shaped by supply-side
factors. Face-to-face is over-represented in relation to demand by a factor of
circa 20%. This is true also for the most vulnerable client groups. A segmented
view of channel affinity demonstrates that face-to-face channel use is particularly
disproportionate in some large client segments.
It is clear that there is a continued need for face-to-face delivery to meet the
needs of some client groups who have no access to remote channels or who
would not be able to cope effectively with remote channels.
Many clients are however open to using a mix of channels and there is an
opportunity to achieve a significant shift to remote channels.
Recommendations
•
For the future, channel and service strategy should be primarily consumer and
evidence driven rather being shaped by the existing sector structure or specific
funding models. This would imply recognition that, in the right context, remote
channels can deliver as effective a debt advice service as face-to-face.
2
Vulnerability factors in this case being mental health issues, learning difficulty, numeracy, literacy or
confidence issues, alcohol or drug addiction issues.
4
•
•
•
•
•
There needs also to be a clear, client needs-driven strategy to protect an
appropriate level of face-to-face delivery, on a scale which reflects need for faceto-face services. This should seek to strike a balance between optimal use of
resource and client needs.
It will be important for this strategy to be owned by the debt advice sector as a
whole and that it is effectively communicated to stakeholders, including the grassroots.
A shared definition of the term “vulnerability” should be developed which
recognises that face-to-face is not appropriate for all vulnerable consumers.
Real benefits could be achieved by developing a sector-wide approach to
communications and promotion of debt advice within a high profile marketing and
awareness building campaign that encompasses all channels and focuses on
those things debt advice clients find most valuable: integrity, confidentiality,
tailored advice and so on.
A holistic, cross-sector, channel-neutral and unified approach to “triage” at point
of entry to the sector needs to be developed to guide potential debt advice clients
efficiently to the most appropriate channels and solutions, thus optimising
resource and client outcomes.
5
Contents
Executive summary................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 7
1.0
Chapter 1. Attitudes to remote channels ................................................................. 8
1.1
Attitudes to remote channels .............................................................................. 9
1.2
Attitudes to different service models................................................................. 13
1.3
Channel segmentation of debt advice clients ................................................... 14
2.0
Chapter 2. Vulnerable clients .................................................................................. 18
3.0
Chapter 3. Potential for channel shift..................................................................... 24
3.1
Key factors in achieving a channel shift ........................................................... 25
3.2
Openness to channel shift ................................................................................ 29
3.3
4.0
3.2.1
The perspective of different channel users.......................................... 29
3.2.2
The perspective of the different channel segments............................. 31
More serious urgent and vulnerable cases....................................................... 36
Chapter 4. Conclusions and recommendations.................................................... 43
4.1
Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 44
4.2
Recommendations............................................................................................ 45
6
Introduction
This is the second volume of a two volume report describing the findings of a study
commissioned by the Money Advice Trust to inform the development of channel
strategy for the debt advice sector.
Against a background of austerity, ongoing economic stress and increasing pressure
for debt advice services to “do more with less”, the debt advice sector needs to
develop a channel strategy for the future which will optimise both outcomes for
consumers and make the most effective use of available funding and resource.
To inform thinking around future development, MAT has commissioned Policis to
undertake research on debt advice clients’ needs, their attitudes to different delivery
channels and the nature and extent to which channel impacts on clients’
experiences, outcomes and levels of satisfaction. The research rests on an evidence
review and both qualitative and quantitative research with debt advice clients. The
study was undertaken as a collaborative project, developed with key stakeholders
from across the sector, who met regularly to consider emerging research findings
and to help frame conclusions and recommendations arising from the evidence.
Volume one, which includes an executive summary, focuses on the profile of debt
advice clients using different channels, channel choice and use, the client experience
of debt advice and the outcomes of, and client satisfaction with, debt advice. It also
contains a more detailed description of the project background, aims and objectives
and of the methodology underpinning the project, which is further expanded upon in
a separate volume of appendices.
This volume focuses on the potential for channel shift and describes attitudes to
channels and the potential for changes in delivery of debt advice, discusses the
issues for more vulnerable groups and seeks to understand the impact of change on
different client groups. Finally, this volume draws these findings together and
presents a set of recommendations for the future.
7
1.0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chapter 1. Attitudes to remote channels
Channel preference is often simply a matter of personal comfort, skills and
experience.
Remote channels are seen as offering important advantages including greater
accessibility and convenience and, importantly, anonymity.
Almost six in ten (57%) debt advice clients value face-to-face contact, but more
(74%), value the anonymity of a phone call for debt advice.
Discomfort with remote channels, especially online, is often a matter of personal
capacity and skills or adverse “customer service” experience.
Misconceptions about the potential of remote channels are widespread among
for those with little experience of them, so that potential debt advice clients often
approach remote channels with little understanding of what remote channels
can offer. As a result, remote channels can be seen as less suited to serious or
complex issues requiring professional expertise or personal support.
Those who have experienced the use of remote channels in emotional or other
crisis situations are largely positive about their experiences and outcomes.
Around a third of clients look to debt advice for a full service in which the
advisers takes on responsibility for dealing with creditors and paperwork. More
clients (46%) feel that the adviser took on this responsibility in the event than
appear to have wanted this approach. Face-to-face clients are a little more likely
to want advisers to take on responsibility, reflecting the greater incidence of
complex and late stage problems as well as lower levels of educational
attainment.
The debt advice client population segments into four “channel affinity”
segments, in terms of their channel and service needs. One of these, the
“Affinity face-to-face” segment, representing 41% of the total, has a majority
preference (76%) for face-to-face delivery.
Some 20% of the debt advice client population are “Channel indifferent”, having
no channel preference. There are two “Channel ambivalent” segments, one low
income, representing 29%, and one smaller high income segment, representing
10% of debt advice clients. Both the “Channel ambivalent” segments source
debt advice via the internet and are heavily phone-biased in terms of channel
use.
The “Affinity face-to-face” segment is largely served face-to-face in line with
preference. In all the other segments, use of face-to-face channels is
disproportionately high compared to the channel’s share of channel preference.
The overall picture is of a relatively high degree of openness to remote
channels, including among those with a preference for face-to-face, and of faceto-face channels being over-used relative to demand and channel preference.
This chapter explores attitudes to remote channels, the positive drivers for effecting a
channel shift and the nature of resistance to remote channels. It concludes with a
segmentation of debt advice channel users, designed to capture the needs of
different client groups and their attitudes towards channel use while also illuminating
the potential for channel shifts and the likely needs and issues arising for different
segments of the debt advice client base. The chapter draws on both the qualitative
and quantitative research.
8
1.1
Attitudes to remote channels
There are a number of drivers, both positive and negative, which underpin potential
for, and resistance to, any shift to remote channels. On the one hand, individuals are
becoming increasingly familiar with remote channels in a range of contexts. On the
other, this experience, primarily of automated customer service, has shaped
perceptions of what remote service can deliver, and not always in ways that are
positive or reflective of the full potential of remote channels.
Use of a range of delivery channels is now widespread but personal comfort is
clearly a key driver of preference and use of different channels
The majority of focus group and depth interview respondents had some experience
of using remote channels in their day-to-day lives. Increasingly, people use remote
channels to deal with financial matters, like bill payment, and several participants in
the qualitative research were accustomed to telephone and internet banking. There
was, however, still a discernible lack of confidence in using the internet for financial
transactions among some clients, who preferred to use online banking to simply
check balances and “keep track”. Inevitably, personal preference is a key driver of
comfort with and use of different channels.
“I’m just not generally a speaking on the phone person… I will not say much over
the phone, that’s the way I am.”
“The simple fact is that I prefer to speak to people on the phone than face-to-face,
I get more nervous face-to-face than I do over the phone.”
In the context of advice, telephone and online services are perceived to offer
greater convenience than face-to-face delivery by some
There was recognition, however, that both telephone and online services are more
available and, potentially, accessible than face-to-face services, making them easier
and more convenient to use.
“To go in there… with my children. I went in there… I waited two hours. So it’s
easier on the phone if they can. It is just easier.”
“During the day, when I’m busy and I’ve got kids and I’m doing tea, that’s when
everything used to go out of my mind, and I’d put it to the side and didn’t want to
think about bills.”
The convenience aspects of remote channels are felt to be particularly important to
help people with mobility or other health problems to access services.
Some found it easier and less embarrassing to open up around sensitive
subjects on the phone
There was a strong feeling that some people find it easier to “open up” and discuss
personal issues on the telephone. For these people the attraction is that remote
channels make it easier to talk to someone about their debt problems, of which many
people are deeply embarrassed, even ashamed. Phone based channels in particular
are seen to offer anonymity, and thus relief from personal exposure.
“I feel awkward when I’m face-to-face. Over the phone I wouldn’t mind, because…
it’s not like they can see what you look like and… when you see them out [say]
‘That’s you who owes loads of money’”.
“They didn’t know who I was. I was just a name… so that was easier than going
there because when you get yourself in that debt you become very embarrassed
9
about it. So it is easier actually talking over the phone when you’re in that sort of
debt.”
The anonymity associated with remote channels is attractive to the majority of
advice clients, including those using face-to-face services
In fact, more than seven in ten (74%) advice clients said that the anonymity of a
telephone or online service was important to them, compared with just under six in
ten (57%) who thought it was important to be able to see the adviser face-to-face.
That said, for those currently using face-to-face channels (some 45% of total clients),
the reverse was true in that seeing the adviser was important to almost nine in ten
face-to-face clients (89%), albeit that almost seven in ten (68%) face-to-face clients
also said that anonymity of a phone call was important to them.
The anonymity of a phone call is more important to debt advice clients overall
than face-to-face contact
Chart 1. Channel features that are important in choosing debt advice agency
100%
90%
80%
Being able to see
the adviser Faceto-face
70%
60%
50%
40%
Having the
anonymity of a
telephone call /
online
30%
20%
10%
0%
All debt advice
users (504)
Phone (226)
Face-to-face (250)
Online (65)
Perceived disadvantages to remote channels relate, in part, to concerns about
lack of personal capacity
For many the potential disadvantages of remote channels lie with concerns around
their own ability to communicate outside a face-to-face context. Fear of being unable
to articulate their problems clearly without being able to see the person they were
communicating with put some people off telephone or internet-based services.
In relation to internet-based services, fears also centred on the need for good
information technology skills; lack of basic literacy and the ability to articulate
problems in writing are also seen as barriers to the use of online services.
“To be honest with you I’m a bit computer illiterate… I mean, I can go on the
internet and look at emails and, you know, type in addresses and stuff like that
but, I mean, actually using the computer for different things, I’m not that good
really. Just basic things.”
The need for a degree of knowledge to shape online searches, and the risk of
information overload are seen as particular risks in relation to online services
People who had used the internet were aware of the need to have a fairly good idea
of what they needed to know, in order to source the information they were looking for.
In addition, information overload was identified as a problem with using the internet,
especially when people lacked the skills or experience to assess the quality and
validity of the information generated.
10
Concerns are also raised around privacy and confidentiality in the context of
remote channels
Being overheard was identified as a risk when using telephone services to discuss
personal issues. Similarly, concern was expressed about the confidentiality and
security of information once it had been submitted online.
Attitudes towards remote delivery channels are heavily shaped by negative
experiences in other sectors
Widespread experience and dissatisfaction with “scripted” telephone interactions,
automated menus and call centre staff with poor communication skills or heavy
accents is a significant factor in reducing comfort and confidence in telephone-based
services.
“Well, on the telephone… you know when you ring up they say, ‘Oh, we’re just
going to put your through’ then you get the music and you sit on the phone, you’ve
rung up an 0845 number from your mobile and you’ve got music playing for 10–15
minutes and when the [bill] comes through, it’s like £40 that’s cost you.”
“Language barrier. I think that would be the only problem because someone who
isn’t very good at English… they often ask you to repeat yourself and after a while
it becomes really annoying. You haven’t got time really to talk about stuff, you just
want to get it done and dusted. You repeat yourself and repeat yourself and you
still don’t get anywhere.”
There is a strong perception – based, in some cases, on experience in other sectors
– that remote channels may be used by some organisations to avoid engaging
directly with their customers, and as a way of saving money at the cost of good
customer service.
“I find with companies, companies want you to look up on their website… they’ll do
anything for you not to speak to someone.”
Misconceptions about what remote channels involve are also widespread
among people with no experience of them
Those who are less familiar with remote channels, inevitably, have a more limited
perception of what they can offer and this was a significant factor in attitudes towards
them as a channel for the delivery of debt advice. It was common, for example, for
people who had no experience of it, to believe that telephone advice would be
impersonal, scripted and menu driven.
“I think if you’re talking on the phone they don’t see you as a person, you know…”
People also feared that there might be a lack of continuity in telephone services,
requiring them to explain their situation to a different adviser each time they called
and, potentially, receiving different advice from each adviser they spoke to.
“I would think that over the phone you might get different people and you would
have to keep explaining yourself and I would struggle with that.”
People with no experience of online channels find it difficult to envisage how
online advice might work in practice
Understanding of what online advice might offer was even more limited, with the
general perception among non-users that it would involve emailing questions
regarding one’s debts and waiting for an adviser to email a reply. Equally, people
feared that advice by email would simply mean they would be sent generic
information tools to help with indebtedness which they may not understand and
11
would have to make use of without support. These misconceptions resulted in a
feeling that successful use of remote channels relied on people having a fairly good
understanding of their own situation and, further, being able to articulate it clearly and
without being prompted by the adviser.
“I needed face-to-face to explain. I suppose it all depends if you understand
what’s happening – I need to be told a few times for it to sink in. You can actually
say to someone ‘What does that mean?’ rather than over the phone where they
say ‘If you don’t understand please give me a call back’.”
As a result, remote channels can be perceived to be less suited to situations
involving serious or complex issues, or requiring personal support
Face-to-face delivery is perceived to result in a better quality interaction and a higher
degree of personal support – being able to “see someone’s face” is important to
people.
“I just think it’s reassurance really. You have someone in front of you, reassuring
you.”
Awareness of body language and the ability to respond to each other are also seen
as being conditional on face-to-face interaction.
“If you’re face-to-face with someone there’s kind of more of a relationship, like how
you react to that person – if that person raises their eyebrows or that person sighs
or that person smiles – there is a kind of real relationship and you react to each
other. I feel that’s important.”
A distinction is drawn between the need for ‘information’ and ‘advice’ with remote
channels sometimes seen as best suited to the delivery of the former.
“I would personally prefer to be face-to-face going to the likes of Citizen’s Advice,
so they’ve got all the information to hand on their computers and they can look
things up and they know, you know, what the law is… if you can speak to
someone face-to-face, you know, you get a picture of what they look like and their
character and how they are…”
In addition, face-to-face services – being more visible and better known – are felt to
be easier to assess in terms of quality and legitimacy than services delivered
remotely.
“How do you know, if you’re doing it over the phone, that someone’s actually
sitting there actually taking notes about it? Where, if you do it face-to-face you can
actually see them do it, and [see] their body language as well.”
Nevertheless, experience of using telephone advice for help with personal,
emotional or crisis situations, while not yet widespread, is very positive.
Some participants had used a telephone service for advice relating to family
problems and had found it a very positive – and personal – experience.
“When I had a lot of problems with my son… I was actually advised to phone
Parentline through a friend who had been through similar problems with her son
and I actually found that really helped me… Because the person on the phone
seemed to really relate to what I was saying and could give me really strong
advice as to how to go around it and deal with things and avenues I hadn’t even
thought of.”
Another had used an online service to cope with similar problems and was equally
positive about her experience.
“I have used online advisers for connections to do with teenagers and things like
that, and the first time I went on it said ‘connect with an adviser now’ so I clicked it
12
and I wasn’t sure what to expect and the next thing it came up, ‘Hi, I’m so and so’
and that was it. It was just typing a conversation and they were really, really good.”
Another had called Shelter for a friend who was facing imminent eviction. People also
recognised that organisations like the Samaritans successfully use the telephone to
provide a very personal, sympathetic and supportive service to vulnerable people.
“The Samaritans work on the phones, people are quite desperate sometimes and
you’re not going to… have the means to turn up for an appointment.”
1.2
Attitudes to different service models
Around a third of clients want a full service approach with face-to-face clients
only slightly more likely to be looking to the adviser to take responsibility
One of the issues which we sought to explore in both the qualitative and quantitative
research was how service models and service needs might fit with attitudes to
channels. We sought to capture propensity to need more or less support across a
spectrum from a full-service, “casework” style approach through to self-help and
empowerment through a series of statements about expectations of the type of
support that clients were hoping debt advice would provide. These ranged from
“wanting the adviser to take the responsibility for dealing with creditors, any problems
and paperwork”, “wanting the adviser to tell you what to do and then support you in
dealing with creditors yourself” through to wanting the adviser to “empower you to
help yourself by providing information on options”. Overall, debt advice clients divided
evenly between those wanting the adviser to take on responsibility (34%), those
looking for direction and support in dealing with creditors themselves (34%) and
those seeking empowerment and information on their options (29%). Channel
differences in this picture were not large, with clients using the face-to-face channel
being only a little more likely than those in other channels to be looking for the
adviser to take responsibility (37%).
More clients are receiving a full service in which advisers take responsibility
for dealing with creditors than appear to want such an approach
Debt advice clients were also asked about how they experienced debt advice
delivery in terms of the balance between responsibility and empowerment. There was
a fairly even split between those who felt the adviser had taken the responsibility for
dealing with creditors away from them (46%) and those who had felt empowered to
help themselves (46%). Channel differences were again not large. However, those in
the face-to-face channel were a little more likely to have felt that the adviser took on
responsibility (49%), with a closer fit between experience and expectations in this
respect than in the other channels. Taken together, this would appear to suggest that
advisers are taking on full responsibility for dealing with creditors and paperwork to a
greater extent than clients in fact expect. It would also seem that those using face-toface are more likely to want and need a full service casework approach, reflecting the
greater likelihood that debts will be late stage and problems more complex.
13
Face-to-face clients are slightly more inclined to want adviser to take on
responsibility
Chart 2a. Expectations of service model prior to
approaching debt advice by channel use
100%
100%
Take
responsibility
for dealing
with creditors,
any problems
and paper
work
90%
80%
70%
Tell you what
to do and
support you in
dealing with
creditors
60%
50%
90%
Empowered to
help myself
80%
70%
60%
Relieved to
have someone
take the
responsibility
on for me
50%
40%
40%
Empower you
to help
yourself by
providing
information on
options
30%
20%
10%
30%
Disempowered
by the debt
advice process
20%
10%
0%
0%
Phone (226) Face-to-face Online (65)
All debt
(250)
advice users
(504)
1.3
Chart 2b. Perceptions of service model experience
by channel use
Phone (226) Face-to-face Online (65)
All debt
(250)
advice users
(504)
Channel segmentation of debt advice clients
As was described in volume one of this report, current patterns of channel use are
driven primarily by supply-side factors and specifically, the channel focus of the
provider first approached which, overwhelmingly, then shapes the channel use for all
subsequent interactions with debt advice. This tendency is reinforced by a lack of
awareness of channel options and the brand dominance of a single provider,
Citizen’s Advice, whose channel focus has historically been face-to-face. As a
consequence, current patterns of channel use do not necessarily reflect active
channel preferences, where these exist, or willingness to use a range of channels.
In order to understand the potential for channel shift, therefore, the research team
sought to capture the various attitudes towards channels and willingness to consider
different channels within a segmentation developed using cluster analysis, and
designed to discriminate between those more or less inclined to use remote channels
while also sharing other key characteristics. The resulting segmentation reveals four
quite distinct groups of debt advice clients with very different characteristics in terms
of their profile, attitudes to different channels and their potential for channel shift.
The debt advice channel segmentation contains four distinct and discrete segments,
illustrated diagrammatically in Figure 1.
• Affinity face-to-face
• Channel indifferent
• Low income channel ambivalent
• High income channel ambivalent.
14
Figure 1. Debt advice channel segmentation
High income channel ambivalent
Low income channel ambivalent
Channel drivers
40% didn’t mind what channel used
34% aware of Citizen’s Advice
84% wanted free advice
18% wanted face-to-face advice
48% sourced provider via internet
Channel use
32% face-to-face
56% phone
14% online
Channel drivers
51% didn’t mind what channel used
40% aware of Citizen’s Advice
75% wanted free advice
26% wanted face-to-face
Channel use
59% Phone
38% face-to-face
10% online
High income
channel
ambivalent,
10%
Low income
channel
ambivalent,
29%
Channel indifferent
Affinity face to face
Channel drivers
92% didn’t mind what channel used
35% aware of Citizen’s Advice
75% wanted free advice
46% sourced provider via internet
Channel use
32% face-to-face
55% phone
24% online
Channel drivers
76% wanted face to face
53% aware of Citizen’s Advice
92% only wanted free advice
Channel use
70% face-to-face
21% phone
9% online
Channel
indifferent, 20%
Affinity face to
face, 41%
One of the key points to note about the segmentation, is that overall there is only one
segment that is clearly focused on a particular channel with the other three segments
much more channel-neutral, a reflection of the attitudes described in the earlier parts
of this chapter and in chapter two of volume one of this report which deals with
patterns of channel choice and use.
“Affinity face-to-face”
This is the largest single segment, comprising four in ten (41%) of debt advice clients
and circa 0.65m individuals. This is the segment most clearly focused on the
traditional model of debt advice delivery, with more than three quarters (76%) clear
prior to seeking debt advice that they wanted advice delivered face-to-face, and more
than half aware of Citizen’s Advice. It is important to note however, that in the event
just 70% of this segment received their debt advice face-to-face, with 21% using
phone and 9% online, indicating a slight under-use of face-to-face relative to
preference.
This segment is more likely than some others both to be anticipating a full-service
case-work type approach, although only a minority of the segment did so, and to in
fact experience debt advice on this model. Around four in ten (39%) were looking to
the adviser to take responsibility for dealing with creditors and sorting out paperwork
and problems, a little less than three in ten (28%) were looking rather for direction
and support in dealing with creditors themselves, while 30% were looking for selfhelp in terms of being empowered to help themselves by being provided with
information on their options. In the event, 49% felt that the debt adviser had taken on
the responsibility for dealing with their debt, 44% that they had been empowered to
help themselves and 4% that they had been disempowered by the debt advice
process.
This is a low income segment, as are the majority of debt advice clients, with 89% in
the lowest income quintile and 36% in social housing. Half have at least one full time
worker in the household. All have formal educational qualifications.
Their debt averages £16,630 with a debt to income ratio of 1.1. A little over a third
(36%) are facing imminent or threatened court or repossession action.
15
The Channel Indifferent
This segment makes up some one in five (20%) of debt advice clients, and circa
0.32m individuals.
Their defining characteristic is their lack of channel affinity, with more than nine out of
ten (92%) having “not minded” which channel they used for debt advice at the point
they sought help. None actively wanted face-to-face advice, while 8% actively sought
online advice. Almost half sourced their advice provider through the internet. A third
used face-to-face for advice, 55% phone based services and 24% online advice
delivery. Clearly, the third of the segment that did use face-to-face would have been
equally comfortable served through other channels.
The Channel Indifferent segment appeared more oriented towards self-help and
facilitated solutions. Only a quarter were looking for an adviser to take responsibility,
while four in ten (39%) were looking for direction and support for dealing with
creditors themselves and 34% were looking for empowerment through information on
their options. In the event, 56% felt empowered to help themselves while 36% felt
that the adviser had taken on responsibility.
This too is a low income segment, with 84% in the lowest household income quintile,
37% in social housing. They are more likely to have a full time worker in the house
(65%). All have formal educational qualifications.
Their average debt is £21,150 with a debt to income ratio of 1.3.
Low income channel ambivalent
This relatively pressured segment also represents some three in ten debt advice
clients, and circa 0.46m individuals.
Channel preferences are mixed, but tend towards indifference, with half (51%) of this
segment claiming that they didn’t mind what channel they used when they
approached debt advice. However, a little over a quarter was looking for face-to-face
support, while some 40% were aware of the Citizen’s Advice brand. Ultimate channel
use in the event is overly biased towards face-to-face relative to channel preference,
with 38% using face-to-face channels, 59% phone and 10% online channels. Faceto-face use is thus over-represented relative to preference, with some 50% more
people in this segment using face-to-face for debt advice than actively wanted to do
so.
The “Low income channel ambivalent” is however the segment most oriented
towards wanting a full-service case-work type approach, with 42% wanting an
adviser to take over responsibility and 53% feeling that the adviser had done so in
fact. Three in ten (31%) had however sought direction and support for dealing with
creditors themselves, while 24% had sought empowerment through information on
their options. In the event, 39% had felt empowered by the debt advice process.
This segment is also low income, made up to a large extent of low paid workers.
Some 81% of this segment falls into the lowest income quintile with half having at
least one full time worker. Some four in ten (42%) live in social housing. Almost half
(48%) have no formal educational qualifications, but these clients are no more likely
than debt advice clients as a whole to have literacy or numeracy issues.
Debt is high relative to their income at £20,100, with a debt to income ratio of 1.5.
One in four (41%) are facing imminent or threatened court or repossession action.
High income channel ambivalent
This is a small and relatively upmarket segment, 10% of the total, and some 0.16m
individuals.
16
Four in ten did not care what channel they used for debt advice, with just less than
one in five (18%) specifically seeking face-to-face advice. Almost half (48%) sourced
their provider via the internet. In the event, 32% used face-to-face, 56% the phone
and 14% online. The use of the face-to-face channel is thus over-used in relation to
preference, with almost twice as many people using face-to-face channels for debt
advice as actively wanted to do so.
This segment is that least oriented towards a case-work approach with only 6%
wanting the adviser to take on responsibility for their debt, albeit that 28% felt that the
adviser had done so in the event. Half (52%) had wanted direction and support for
dealing with creditors themselves, while 36% had wanted to be empowered through
information on their options. In the event, 52% felt empowered by the debt advice
process. However, some 14% felt that the debt advice process disempowered them.
This segment would thus seem that for whom actual service model delivery is the
least good fit with regard to expectations and needs.
All of this segment fall within the top 50% of household incomes. Some 42% have a
degree or second degree. Three quarters (74%) have a full time worker in the
household.
Average debt is circa £24,150, with a debt to income ratio of 0.5, thus significantly
lower than for other debt advice clients.
Some segments have much greater desire for self-help and empowerment than
others
Chart 3a. Expectations of service model prior to
approaching debt advice by segment
100%
Take
responsibility
for dealing
with creditors,
any problems
and paper
work
90%
80%
70%
Tell you what
to do and
support you in
dealing with
creditors
60%
50%
40%
Chart 3b. Perceptions of service model experience
by segment
100%
Empowered to
help myself
90%
80%
70%
60%
Relieved to
have someone
take the
responsibility
on for me
50%
40%
Empower you
to help
yourself by
providing
information on
options
30%
20%
10%
0%
30%
Disempowered
by the debt
advice process
20%
10%
0%
High
Affinity Channel
Low
Add debt
face-to- indifferent income
income
advice
channal
users (504) channel face (208) (102)
ambivalent
ambivalent
(50)
(144)
Affinity Channel
High
Add debt
Low
face-to- indifferent income
advice
income
channal
users (504) channel face (208) (102)
ambivalent
ambivalent
(50)
(144)
Taken together, the picture that emerges from both the qualitative and quantitative
research is one in which although there is a relatively high degree of openness to the
use of a range of channels, there are also considerable barriers. These are rooted for
the most part however in misconceptions about remote channels and a perception of
remote advice delivery that is shaped primarily by adverse “customer service”
experience in other contexts and concerns about personal capacity to operate in
remote channels.
The segmentation provides some sense of scale for these competing drivers. It
shows clearly also both that the debt advice client base is not homogenous in terms
of attitudes to channels and that the majority of debt advice clients would be open to
receiving advice in a variety of ways. It confirms also that, outside the segment with a
strong affinity with face-to-face delivery, face-to-face channels are being overdeployed relative to channel preferences and needs. The same would appear to be
true, albeit to a lesser extent, for full-service, case-work models relative to actual
support needs, with this most evident in the best educated and most technically
competent segments.
17
2.0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chapter 2. Vulnerable clients
One of the key concerns in developing channel strategy is to understand the
scale of vulnerability and the issues arising for vulnerable clients.
To inform discussion, we offer six alternative definitions of vulnerable clients
based on different configurations of a range of vulnerability factors, low income,
lack of educational attainment and the seriousness and urgency of debt.
The vulnerable groups arising from these various more or less tightly drawn
definitions vary from 18% to 66% of all debt advice clients.
Definitions based on low income do not capture those likely to be in greatest
need of support and specialist skills as effectively as definitions based primarily
on vulnerability factors.
Patterns of channel use for vulnerable clients do not differ significantly from
other debt advice clients.
Vulnerable clients are more likely to use the face-to-face channel, in line with
use by those with the most urgent debt more widely, but vulnerable clients are
being served effectively in all channels.
Vulnerable clients appear to bring similar expectations and priorities to debt
advice as other clients. They experience similar quality of service and similar
outcomes, both hard and soft, and are equally satisfied with advice delivery.
There is no significant channel variation in this pattern and little difference also
between the various vulnerable groups, albeit that those on the lowest incomes
are slightly more inclined to use face-to-face channels than other vulnerable
clients.
One of the key concerns in developing a channel strategy is to understand both the
issues arising for more vulnerable clients and the scale of vulnerability within the
wider universe of debt advice.
The first issue is one of definition. In discussion with stakeholders, a number of
potential parameters for potential inclusion in any definition of vulnerability were
suggested. These included both the degree of urgency or complexity of the debt
problems which clients were facing and the extent of personal vulnerability.
Vulnerability indicators suggested included specific vulnerability factors – such as
mental health issues, learning disability, literacy or numeracy problems or addiction
issues but also extended more widely. Some took the view that being on a very low
income or lacking educational qualifications were themselves vulnerability factors, as
were softer factors such as lack of confidence in dealing with paperwork, officials or
unfamiliar institutions. On the basis of the suggestions, these various parameters
were built into the quantitative research and used by the research team to arrive at a
potential series of more or less tightly defined definitions of vulnerability.
We here outline six potential definitions of vulnerability, configured in different ways
and drawn more or less tightly. The first three vulnerability groups took as a base
those with the most serious and urgent debt, i.e. those facing or threatened with court
action of repossession, while the remaining three took in all debt advice clients,
whatever their configuration of debt or financial difficulty. Groups 1, 2 and 3 are thus
a more closely defined subset of groups 4, 5 and 6 respectively.
18
Those with serious and / or urgent debt only:
Vulnerability group 1. Literacy, numeracy issues, learning disability,
mental health issues, addiction issues or issues around confidence in
dealing with institutions, paperwork or officials
Vulnerability group 2. Anyone on a very low income (lowest
household decile) or with no formal educational qualifications
Vulnerability group 3. Any of the vulnerability fac tors specified in
definition 1 or on very low income or with no formal educational
qualifications
All debt advice clients:
Vulnerability group 4. Literacy, numeracy issues, learning disability,
mental health issues, addiction issues or issues around confidence in
dealing with institutions, paperwork or officials
Vulnerability group 5. Anyone on a very low income (lowest
household decile) or with no formal educational qualifications
Vulnerability group 6. Any of the vulnerability fac tors specified in
definition 1 or on very low income or with no formal educational
qualifications
Even the most tightly drawn of these subsets represent a significant proportion of
clients (18% or 0.28m individuals for definitions on the basis of either Vulnerability
group 1 or 2, but extending to two thirds of the debt advice client base (66% and
1.04m individuals) on the most widely drawn definition, Vulnerability group 6.
Depending on how vulnerability is defined, vulnerable clients represent
between a fifth and two thirds of all debt advice clients
Chart 4a. Vulnerable debt advice clients' share of
population on various definitions of vulnerability
Chart 4b. Estimated number of vulnerable consumers
(m)
100%
1
90%
0.9
80%
0.8
70%
0.7
60%
0.6
50%
0.5
40%
0.4
30%
0.3
20%
0.2
10%
0.1
0%
0
1. Serious
2. Serious
debt and
debt and very
literacy /
low income or
numeracy /
no formal
confidence / educational
Learning
qualifications
Disability /
(58)
Mental Health
/ Addiction
(59)
3. Serious
4. All debt
debt and
advice users
vulnerability and literacy /
factors as 1
numeracy /
or very low
confidence /
income or no
Learning
formal
Disability /
educational Mental Health
qualifications / Addiction
(89)
(125)
5. All debt
6. All debt
advice users advice users
and very low
and
income or no vulnerability
formal
factors as 1
educational
or very low
qualifications income or no
(116)
formal
educational
qualifications
(185)
1. Serious
2. Serious
debt and
debt and very
literacy /
low income or
numeracy /
no formal
confidence /
educational
Learning
qualifications
Disability /
(58)
Mental Health
/ Addiction
(59)
3. Serious
debt and
vulnerability
factors as 1 or
very low
income or no
formal
educational
qualifications
(89)
4. All debt
advice users
and literacy /
numeracy /
confidence /
Learning
Disability /
Mental Health
/ Addiction
(125)
5. All debt
6. All debt
advice users advice users
and very low
and
income or no vulnerability
formal
factors as 1 or
educational
very low
qualifications income or no
(116)
formal
educational
qualifications
(185)
19
Definitions based on low income do not necessarily capture those likely to
need the most support or specialist skills
In seeking to understand concentrations of disadvantage, it is important to note that
the groups specifically defined on the basis of vulnerability factors (i.e. 1 and 4) are
significantly more disadvantaged and would seem likely to have a greater need for
specialist support and skills than those defined on the basis of having a very low
income or with no formal educational qualifications (i.e. 2 and 5). Conversely, only a
minority of those with specific vulnerability factors have very low incomes or lack
educational attainment.
The groups defined in terms of vulnerability factors appear to have a higher
proportion of clients with needs requiring specialist skills and support
Chart 5a. Numeracy, literacy and confidence issues
for vulnerability groups
140%
Chart 5b. Mental health problems by vulnerability
group
100%
90%
120%
Confidence
issues
100%
80%
70%
Literacy issues
60%
80%
50%
60%
Numeracy
issues
40%
30%
40%
20%
Difficulties with
forms
20%
10%
0%
0%
Serious debt
and literacy /
numeracy /
confidence /
Learning
Disability /
Mental Health
/ Addiction
(59)
Serious debt Serious debt
and
and very low
income or no vulnerability
factors as 1
formal
or very low
educational
qualifications income or no
formal
(58)
educational
qualifications
(89)
All debt
advice users
and literacy /
numeracy /
confidence /
Learning
Disability /
Mental Health
/ Addiction
(125)
Serious debt and Serious debt and Serious debt and All debt advice All debt advice All debt advice
users and
users and very
users and
very low income vulnerability
literacy /
low income or no vulnerability
literacy /
factors as 1 or
or no formal
numeracy /
factors as 1 or
formal
numeracy /
very low income
educational
confidence /
very low income
educational
confidence /
or no formal
qualifications
Learning
or no formal
qualifications
Learning
educational
(58)
Disability /
educational
(116)
Disability /
qualifications
Mental Health /
qualifications
Mental Health /
(89)
Addiction (59)
(185)
Addiction (125)
All debt
All debt
advice users advice users
and
and very low
income or no vulnerability
factors as 1
formal
or very low
educational
qualifications income or no
formal
(116)
educational
qualifications
(185)
Those with vulnerability factors are not necessarily those on the lowest
incomes or lacking educational attainment
Chart 6a. Very low incomes (lowest decile)
Chart 6b. Lack of educational attainment by
vulnerability group
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Serious debt
and literacy /
numeracy /
confidence /
Learning
Disability /
Mental Health
/ Addiction
(59)
Serious debt Serious debt
and very low
and
income or no vulnerability
formal
factors as 1 or
educational
very low
qualifications income or no
formal
(58)
educational
qualifications
(89)
All debt
advice users
and literacy /
numeracy /
confidence /
Learning
Disability /
Mental Health
/ Addiction
(125)
All debt
All debt
advice users advice users
and very low
and
income or no vulnerability
formal
factors as 1 or
educational
very low
qualifications income or no
formal
(116)
educational
qualifications
(185)
Serious debt
and literacy /
numeracy /
confidence /
Learning
Disability /
Mental Health
/ Addiction
(59)
Serious debt Serious debt
and very low
and
income or no vulnerability
formal
factors as 1 or
educational
very low
qualifications income or no
(58)
formal
educational
qualifications
(89)
All debt
advice users
and literacy /
numeracy /
confidence /
Learning
Disability /
Mental Health
/ Addiction
(125)
All debt
All debt
advice users advice users
and very low
and
income or no vulnerability
formal
factors as 1 or
educational
very low
qualifications income or no
(116)
formal
educational
qualifications
(185)
20
Patterns of channel use for the vulnerable groups do not differ very
substantially from the wider population of debt advice clients
In terms of channel use, however, it is clear that vulnerable groups, however defined,
do not differ substantially from the wider population or indeed from each other. A little
less than six out of ten of those in each of the vulnerable groups with serious and
urgent debt and facing immediate or threatened court action or repossession used
the face-to-face channel, in line with other debt advice clients with serious and urgent
debt. Across the vulnerable groups as a whole, use of the face-to-face channel, at a
little over half in each case, was also close to the debt advice client base overall (at
49%). There is thus a very significant tranche of vulnerable individuals being served
already in channels other than face-to-face.
The most vulnerable groups with serious debt are concentrated in face-to-face,
but all channels are serving a significant body of vulnerable clients
Chart 7. Current channel use for debt advice by vulnerability group
100%
90%
80%
Online
70%
60%
Phone
50%
40%
Face-to-face
30%
20%
10%
0%
Serious debt
and literacy /
numeracy /
confidence /
Learning
Disability /
Mental Health /
Addiction (59)
Serious debt
and very low
income or no
formal
educational
qualifications
(58)
All debt advice All debt advice All debt advice
Serious debt
users and
and vulnerability
users and very
users and
literacy /
factors as 1 or
low income or
vulnerability
numeracy /
very low income
no formal
factors as 1 or
confidence /
or no formal
educational very low income
Learning
educational
qualifications
or no formal
Disability /
qualifications
(116)
educational
Mental Health /
(89)
qualifications
Addiction (125)
(185)
Slightly more vulnerable clients placed a premium on face-to-face contact than
other clients but differences in channel preference are not large
The only respect in which the vulnerable groups differed slightly from debt advice
clients as a whole in their channel preferences, was in the value placed on being able
to see the adviser face-to-face. Almost two thirds (64%) of the various vulnerable
groups with serious and urgent debt problems said that face-to-face contact was
important to them, the same proportion as for all those with serious and urgent debt.
This compares to a little less than six in ten (57%) of all clients. Vulnerable groups
were very slightly less likely to feel that the anonymity of a telephone call was
important (69%), compared to some 74% for debt advice clients overall.
Vulnerable groups appear to have similar priorities to other clients and do not
appear to be more likely to want advisers to take on responsibility
Vulnerable groups bring very similar expectations and needs to debt advice as other
clients. They are, for example, only slightly more likely than debt advice clients
overall to be seeking someone to take on responsibility for dealing with their debt and
paperwork for them and almost equally as likely to be looking for support and
empowerment. In terms of the factors which were regarded as important in choosing
a debt adviser, more than 95% of all the various vulnerable groups said that trust in
the integrity of the organisation, independence, professionalism and expertise, a non
judgement approach, sufficient time to explain the problems, privacy, confidentiality
21
and personalised advice were important to them – very much in line with other
clients.
Those on the lowest incomes and in most serious debt are slightly more likely
to want advisers to take responsibility but this is not the case for other
vulnerable groups
Chart 8. Expectations of balance of responsibility and empowerment – expectations of debt
advice by vulnerability group
100%
90%
Empower you to
help yourself
80%
70%
60%
Support you in
dealing with
creditors
50%
40%
30%
Take responsibility
for dealing with
creditors and
sorting out paperwork for you
20%
10%
0%
All debt advice
users (504)
Serious debt
and literacy /
numeracy /
confidence /
Learning
Disabilty / M
Health / D or
Alc (89)
Serious debt All debt advice All debt advice All debt advice
Serious debt
users and
users and very
users and
and very low and vulnerabilty
vulnerabilty
low income or
literacy /
income or no factors as 1 or
factors as 1 or
no formal
numeracy /
very low
formal
very low
educational
confidence /
income or no
educational
income or no
qualifications
Learning
formal
qualifications
formal
(213)
Disabilty / M
educational
(91)
educational
Health
/
D
or
qualifications
qualifications
Alc (222)
(139)
(331)
Quality of service experience and levels of client satisfaction are very similar to
those of all debt advice clients
Equally, the vulnerable groups, however defined, appear to have similar experiences
of advice delivery and service to other customers, albeit that they are slightly more
likely to have to wait to see an adviser. This may reflect their greater use of the faceto-face channel, with vulnerable clients no more likely to experience delays than
face-to-face clients overall. Vulnerable clients are similarly highly satisfied with the
experience of debt advice, with 92% very or quite satisfied with the quality of debt
advice and 86% very or quite satisfied with the outcomes of debt advice, in line with
all debt advice clients, at 90% and 87% respectively. As with other debt advice
clients, vulnerable client groups overwhelmingly felt that their own experience of debt
advice closely matched their expectations across all of the parameters that were
important to them. There were moreover no significant differences between the six in
ten vulnerable individuals being served in the face-to-face channel and those being
served in the phone channel.
Hard and soft outcomes are very positive for vulnerable client groups
As with debt advice clients as a whole, both hard and soft outcomes for vulnerable
clients are very positive, with the overwhelming majority achieving a solution to their
problems. Outcomes for the more vulnerable groups differ little to those for clients
overall and appear very similar between channels, also. The small differences that do
arise appear to be associated with the profile and circumstances of the clients rather
than channel related factors.
22
Outcomes do not appear significantly different to those achieved for all clients
Chart 9a. Outcomes of debt advice
All clients and vulnerable clients
Chart 9b. Outcomes of debt advice
All clients with serious / urgent debts and vulnerable
clients with serious / urgent debts
100%
100%
Bankruptcy
90%
Bankruptcy
90%
Debt relief order (DRO)
80%
Debt relief order (DRO)
80%
Some/ all of debt written off
70%
Some/ all of debt written off
70%
Individual Voluntary
Arrangement (IVA)
60%
Court action / repossession
stopped
50%
Arrangement to make token
payment until my
circumstances change
40%
60%
Individual Voluntary
Arrangement (IVA)
50%
Court action / repossession
stopped
Arrangement to make token
payment until my
circumstances change
40%
Debt management plan
30%
Debt management plan
30%
20%
Payments reduced to
manageable level
20%
Payments reduced to
manageable level
10%
Debts stopped increasing /
interest frozen
10%
Debts stopped increasing /
interest frozen
0%
All debt advice users All debt advice users All debt advice users
(504)
and literacy /
and very low income
numeracy /
or no formal
confidence /
educational
Learning Disability/ qualifications (213)
M Health / D or Alc
(222)
All debt advice users
and vulnerabilty
factors as 1 or very
low income or no
formal educational
qualifications (331)
0%
All serious / urgent
debts (191)
Serious debt and
literacy / numeracy /
confidence /
Learning Disability /
M Health / D or Alc
(89)
Serious debt and
very low income or
no formal
educational
qualifications (91)
Serious debt and
vulnerabilty factors
as 1 or very low
income or no formal
educational
qualifications (139)
Taken together therefore, it would seem that there is less difference between
“vulnerable” client groups and debt advice clients more widely than might have been
anticipated. Their patterns of channel use and preference are also not distinctive,
other than a slight bias in both use and preference towards the face-to-face channel,
which itself is perhaps less marked than might have been expected. Vulnerable
clients are clearly however being served successfully in all channels, with all
channels producing very similar outcomes in terms of experience, outcomes and
satisfaction. Clearly, however, there will be niche groups who will have specific
service needs that arise from their particular vulnerability, which would not be
explored in any detail within the scope of this research.
23
3.0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chapter 3. Potential for channel shift
The key factors in achieving a channel shift are not necessarily channel specific but
rather rest on factors such as the skill and professionalism of the adviser, and the
integrity and reputation of the advice provider.
All channels need to offer personalised advice tailored to client circumstances,
consistency of contact and checks to ensure that clients understand recommendations
and can act on them.
Speed, convenience, “real-time” responses and reassurance on the practical aspects of
handling paperwork are also important.
Eight in ten clients would feel comfortable with debt advice delivered by phone if they
were confident it was independent, professional and personalised. This is true also of
seven in ten face-to-face clients and of those with a strong expressed preference for
face-to-face.
There would appear significant potential also to increase the use of online channels.
The appetite is less for a stand-alone channel than one which is linked to personalised
phone and email advice where required.
Online services would require a degree of access to expert telephone support if people
are to have confidence in using them.
While there is a high degree of cross-over between those willing to use phone and online channels, there is also significant resistance to shifting online among those now
using, and those willing to use, phone channels.
Overall, 20% more clients are using face-to-face than actively want to do so, 3 with use
disproportionate to demand and need highest in the “Channel Indifferent” and “High
income channel ambivalent” segments, in which use exceeds need by a factor of three
and almost two times respectively. These segments would seem the appropriate earlystage targets for channel shift.
Active resistance to channel shift (being very or quite uncomfortable with the idea) is low
but can be deeply felt, at 12% for phone and 22% for online, but varies considerably
between segments. One in five of the “Affinity face-to-face” segment but just 2% of the
“Channel indifferent” are resistant to phone, with 28% and 5% of the same segments
being resistant to online.
A key focus of channel strategy must be the protection of face-to-face services for
vulnerable clients who need it and facilitation of access to, and effective use of, remote
channels for vulnerable clients who want or need to be served remotely.
Digital exclusion (having no access to the internet and/or reliance on a PAYG phone) is
an issue for 25% of debt advice clients in the lowest income decile and for 15% of those
defined as being vulnerable on the basis of exhibiting at least one of a range of
vulnerability factors, 4 which clearly precludes the potential for a shift to remote channels
for these clients.
There is however little difference between the variously defined vulnerable client groups
and other debt advice clients in their openness to remote channels and attitudes to
potential channel shift.
Vulnerable groups appear also to be over-served in the face-to-face channel relative to
their channel preference, with over-representation highest (at 40%) among those with a
range of vulnerability factors but in line with all debt advice clients (at 20%) for those on
the lowest incomes.
Remote channels appear to have slightly greater appeal for those with the most urgent
and serious debt and for those with a range of vulnerability factors compared to those
on the lowest incomes.
3
I.e. 20% more debt advice clients are using face-to-face channels than actively express a preference
for face-to-face delivery.
4
Vulnerability factors in this case being mental health issues, learning difficulty, numeracy, literacy or
confidence issues, alcohol or drug addiction issues.
24
3.1
Key factors in achieving a channel shift
Participants in each stage of the research were asked to consider the pros and cons
of accessing debt advice via remote channels in the future. They were also asked, in
the context of the current recession and increasing numbers of people experiencing
financial difficulties, to consider whether and how more people might be encouraged
to use remote channels, in order that advice could be provided to a greater number
of people in need. These views were, of course, heavily shaped by people’s own
experiences of having received advice but participants were encouraged to think
beyond their recent experiences to consider what might influence their feelings about
remote channels, should they need debt advice again. People’s views on this were
shaped by a range of factors, including previous experience and personal
preference. Interestingly, however, many of the factors that people identified as being
important in influencing channel use in the future were not channel-specific.
Views were heavily shaped by previous experience of debt advice with clients
of different channels equally comfortable with the channels they had used
Attitudes towards the potential future use of remote channels were, predictably,
heavily shaped by people’s experience of having received advice. In this context,
people who had used remote channels were largely happy to use them again in the
future and, having heard of others’ experiences during the focus groups, felt it had
worked as well as face-to-face advice. Face-to-face advice clients – despite hearing
evidence to the contrary from remote channel clients in the focus groups – were
more likely to feel that their experience could not be emulated by remote channels
and that this would impact on both the advice process and the outcome.
Nevertheless, the importance of previous experience in shaping these attitudes
suggests that as more people use remote channels, positive attitudes towards using
them again will increase still further.
There was broad consensus between clients of different channels on the key
factors in achieving a channel shift
A number of factors were identified in the focus group discussions and depth
interviews, which relate to the potential for channel shift.
The skills and conduct of the adviser were seen as the critical success factor
Most advice recipients talked of the importance of feeling that they had established a
relationship with their adviser. Having a good relationship with their adviser was,
largely, of equal importance to advice recipients regardless of the channel they had
used. The survey evidence presented in Volume 1 indicates that good personal
relationships can be felt across all three channels, and this is confirmed by the
experiences of the remote channel clients who participated in the focus group and
depth interviews.
Face-to-face clients have reservations about whether relationships can be
established remotely
Face-to-face advice clients, however, tended to feel that building a good working
relationship with a debt adviser would not be possible via remote channels and felt
that these channels would lack the ‘human touch’. In particular, face-to-face advice
clients placed great importance on being able to see their adviser.
25
A part of the desire for face-to-face contact rests as much on the need for
reassurance and affirmation as well as practicalities
To a large extent, the importance attached to being able to see the adviser face-toface, however, related to the need for assurance that they were being listened to
and, more importantly, ‘heard’. In addition, the low self-esteem and stigma that many
people felt at the time they sought advice made some people particularly concerned
to be able to see that the adviser was neither laughing at them, nor judging them
during the interview. In the case of online advice, a few face-to-face clients were
uncomfortable with the idea of communicating with a tool rather than a person, which
is a feature of some online debt advice services.
Communication to create a sense that advisers in remote channels can be
similarly empathetic and professional is key
Being able to trust that advisers on remote, particularly telephone channels would
have the same sensitive, empathetic and non-judgmental approach that some people
associate only with face-to-face advice is likely to significantly increase comfort
levels. During the course of the focus group discussions, in particular, some of the
face-to-face advice clients, having listened to others’ experiences of remote
channels, thought they would be happy to receive advice by telephone once they had
established a relationship with an adviser.
Some people were not comfortable with the idea of dealing with remote channels
unless they had the potential for direct contact with an adviser. Others, especially
those who were younger and more accustomed to using the internet for social
networking, were positive about the idea of using online debt advice services,
particularly where they are provided via live web-chat. They felt that the interactive
nature of a live web-chat would provide the reassurance that the adviser understood
their situation.
Tailored personalised advice, support to ensure clients’ understand
recommendations and consistency of contact is important
A number of issues were raised in relation to the advice process itself, which are
significant in relation to the potential for channel shift.
Receiving advice that related to them, personally, rather than general information or
advice was important to everyone. Few people who had not used remote channels
perceived them as being able to offer advice on a personal, interactive basis. This led
to fears that the process would not be able to adapt to people’s differing levels of
understanding and confidence. Related to this, concerns were expressed by people
who had not used them, that advice received via remote channels would necessarily
be less detailed and individually tailored than would be the case with face-to-face
advice and would not help them to make decisions or take action. In addition, people
feared that online advice services, in particular, would not prompt them to remember
key details or aspects of their situation and that this would reduce the relevance of
the advice received.
Confidence that advice received via remote channels would include checks that
people had understood what the adviser was saying, and additional support, such as
written follow-ups for telephone advice clients, or a free phone number that online
advice clients could call if they got stuck, seems likely to provide great reassurance
on this issue.
Consistency in the advice process was also widely important. Face-to-face advice
clients wanted assurances that they would be able to speak to the same adviser if
26
they called a service or, at least, speak to someone who was familiar with their case
and the advice they had received to date.
Reassurance on practical aspects of handing paperwork is also important
Practical issues, relating especially to the handling of paperwork, was a big concern
expressed, again, largely by people who had not used remote channels. Some clients
of face-to-face advice had particularly valued the fact that they could take all of their
bills – including unopened letters – to the adviser and work through them together.
They did not perceive remote channels as being able to offer an equivalent to this.
Many were both surprised and impressed at hearing that some telephone advice
clients had been able to post all of their correspondence to the advice provider.
People who were more accustomed to using information technology, on the other
hand, were relatively comfortable with the idea of scanning copies of bills and letters
and emailing them to an adviser.
Speed and timing is frequently a key issue for those in crisis and facing court
action
Issues relating to speed and timing are highly significant in relation to the potential for
channel shift. The speed at which people are able to gain access to debt advice is a
key factor in influencing people’s attitudes to different channels. Awareness of
waiting times for face-to-face advice was widespread and this was recognised as
being extremely problematic for some. A relatively high proportion of face-to-face
clients in the focus groups and the depth interviews felt that they would use remote
channels if it reduced the amount of time they had to wait to receive advice, although
most thought they were more likely to use a telephone service than to seek online
advice. Some face-to-face clients, however, were adamant that they’d prefer to hang
on and wait for a face-to-face consultation.
Real time response is important for those under immediate and significant
pressure from creditors
Also important, however, was the extent to which different channels were perceived to
be able to provide advice and reassurance in ‘real time’. There was a belief that you
can ‘get more answers’ if you are face-to-face with an adviser because it would be
easier to ask questions during the consultation. Face-to-face clients, in particular, felt
that remote channels would involve delays between submitting information and
receiving advice, which made it less ‘immediate’ and, therefore, less useful in their
view. These misconceptions were key in influencing some people away from remote
channels.
The reputation and integrity of the advice provider is ultimately critical
Low brand awareness of remote channels appears to be a significant obstacle to
more widespread use of them. People were concerned about using advice providers
that they had not heard of, and which were not visible to them in the way that high
street, usually face-to-face, providers are. This, coupled with bad experiences of
telephone-based fee-charging debt advice companies, and internet searches which
had brought them into contact with sub-prime lenders, often with quite aggressive
sales practices, significantly reduced people’s confidence in using remote channels.
In this context, being unable to see the adviser and their workplace made people feel
that they could not assess the quality or integrity of the provider.
Overall, participants in the qualitative research felt that the reputation of the advice
provider would be the key factor in encouraging them to use remote channels, with
27
charities perceived to provide the most reassurance. People also felt, however, that
they would be more likely to use a remote channel, even if they had not heard of the
provider, if they had been referred by an adviser, or advice provider, that they
trusted. In general, face-to-face advice clients felt that, if the quality of the service
was the equivalent, they would be prepared to use telephone advice.
Particular assurances regarding confidentiality in relation to remote channels were
also seen as being key in encouraging more people to use them.
Perspectives on the convenience aspect of different channels were largely a
matter of experience, skills and circumstances
Views on the convenience, or otherwise, of particular channels were heavily shaped
by personal circumstances and preferences, and existing comfort levels with different
channels. Those who were reasonably accustomed to, and comfortable with, using
online channels thought this offered the highest degree of convenience, because
they could be accessed in-home at a time of their choice. This was followed by
telephone services, which could also be accessed from home and had longer
opening hours than most face-to-face services.
Those who were less comfortable with remote channels, however, perceived a
greater degree of inconvenience to using them. This was particularly the case with
online channels, which those who were less computer literate or for whom the
internet was less easily available, felt were more time consuming than travelling to
use face-to-face services.
Costs were important but understood only in terms of cost to the client, with
phone channels potentially regarded as high cost
Perceptions of the costs attached to different channels did not necessarily reflect the
real costs of using them. Face-to-face and online services were perceived to be costfree, and people did not count any expenses related to travelling to face-to-face
providers or the costs of broadband access or other internet use. Telephone advice,
on the other hand, was viewed as being, potentially, very expensive if lengthy calls
were involved. It is likely that reassurance that telephone advice is offered via free
phone numbers, would make a difference to people considering using this channel
for the first time.
Channel diversity was seen as an important feature of the sector by some
There was a widespread view that a choice of channels for debt advice was needed,
to meet a range of needs and preferences, recognising that these are heavily shaped
by individuals’ circumstances.
In addition, there was a strong view that some people will always need face-to-face
debt advice provision, for reasons relating to personal capacity. In some cases this
related to practical factors, such as having access to a telephone or the internet,
being computer literate, and being able to travel to use face-to-face services.
Most focus group and depth interview participants also agreed that some people
would find it extremely difficult to cope without face-to-face services. One participant
with mental health problems explained the importance of face-to-face debt advice to
her. She felt that she would always need face-to-face advice because her financial
difficulties were triggered by a relapse in her mental health. This meant that she
tended to be in a crisis situation, involving wider difficulties as well as financial
problems. In addition, when her mental health problems were severe, she struggled
to take in information or communicate clearly. In these circumstances, she felt she
28
required specialist help, ideally from someone who understood her condition and was
experienced in providing help in these circumstances.
3.2
Openness to channel shift
3.2.1
The perspective of different channel users
Based on the factors identified as being important in the qualitative phase of the
project, survey questions were constructed to give a clearer indication of the potential
for channel shift to occur, if the right conditions were in place. To encourage people
to think beyond personal preference, the questions were set in the context of growing
demand for debt advice and limited resources for the provision of face-to-face advice.
While this, clearly, cannot be taken as a guarantee of willingness to use remote
channels, it does show the potential for channel shift to be achieved if clients are
confident that these services meet their needs.
Eight in ten clients would feel comfortable with debt advice delivered by phone
if they were confident of independent, professional and tailored advice
Survey respondents were asked how comfortable they thought they would be with
receiving debt advice by telephone, if they were sure that they were “talking to a
trusted and independent organisation and to a trained debt advice professional with
good people skills”. Overall, eight in ten (82%) people thought they would be very or
quite comfortable with receiving debt advice by telephone in these circumstances,
including seven in ten (70%) people using face-to-face advice clients. As the
qualitative research suggested would be the case, those already using remote
channels were most likely to be positive about their prospects of using telephone
advice, with more than nine in ten of each group saying they would be comfortable
with it. Predictably, face-to-face advice clients were least comfortable with the idea of
telephone debt advice, even with guarantees about the integrity of the provider and
the skills of the adviser. Two in ten (21%) said they would be very or quite
uncomfortable with telephone debt advice, compared with just over one in ten (13%)
people overall.
Even among face-to-face clients, seven in ten would be comfortable with
advice delivered by phone
Degree of comfort with advice delivered by phone by primary channel used “provided delivered
by trusted organisation and professional adviser with good people skills”
Chart 10a. Degree of comfort with phone
advice by current channel use
Chart 10b. Comfort with phone based advice
100%
90%
Not at all comfortable,
5%
80%
70%
Quite
comfortabl
e
60%
Quite uncomfortable,
8%
Neither comfortable
nor uncomfortable,
6%
50%
Very comfortable,
53%
40%
Very
comfortabl
e
30%
Quite comfortable,
29%
20%
10%
0%
Phone (226)
Face-to-face
(250)
Online (65)
*Provided you were talking to a trusted and independent
organisation and to a trained debt advice professional
with good people skills
29
There would appear significant potential to increase the use of online channels
Survey respondents were also asked how comfortable they would be with accessing
debt advice online. Here again, on the basis of the qualitative research, and in an
effort to ask people to consider a realistic scenario for the future which reflected what
people in qualitative research had said about what they would need in an online
context, the question was qualified with the words “if you ‘were dealing with a tried
and trusted and independent organisation and could have email or telephone access
to a trained debt professional if you wanted it’. Again, the findings suggest significant
potential to increase the number of people using online debt advice series, in the
right conditions. Overall, seven in ten (71%) people thought they would be very or
quite comfortable with online advice in these circumstances, although it is notable
that far fewer people said they were very comfortable with online advice than with
telephone advice. The proportion of people who said they would not be comfortable
with online advice is similar, at one in five (22%), to those who are uncomfortable
with telephone advice.
High degree of acceptance also of online delivery and online as front end for
personalised phone and email based advice
Degree of comfort with online advice “provided that you were dealing with a trusted and
independent organisation and that you could have email or telephone access to a trained debt
advice professional if you wanted to”
Chart 11a. Comfort with online advice
Chart 11b. Comfort with online advice by current
channel use
100%
90%
Not at all
comfortable, 13%
Quite
uncomfortable,
10%
80%
Very
comfortable,
36%
70%
Quite
comfortabl
e
60%
50%
40%
Neither comfortable
nor uncomfortable,
5%
Very
comfortabl
e
30%
20%
10%
Quite comfortable,
35%
0%
Phone (226)
Face-to-face
(250)
Online (65)
Online services would require a degree of access to expert telephone support
if people are to have confidence in using online channels
Developing this strand of questioning further, people were also asked to identify a
range of factors that would be important to them if they were to consider using online
debt advice services. These findings, too, echoed the views expressed by
participants in the qualitative research. The most important factors related to the
availability of additional support and the degree to which the advice was personal
rather than general. More than eight in ten (86%) people said that having access to a
telephone adviser if they were having difficulties navigating online debt advice would
be important to them, and nearly eight in ten (78%) wanted to be able to ask a
professional adviser questions by email. Eight in ten people said that having
personalised tools (79%) and downloadable resources (78%) were important.
Interestingly, despite the importance attached by some people to being able to see
and interact with an adviser, being able to have a live web-chat with an adviser was
seen as being slightly less important, valued by just six in ten (63%) of people; and
being able to chat on-screen with an adviser was important to just half (51%) of
30
survey respondents. There were some key variations between the various channel
affinity segments in their attitudes to online delivery, with the “Channel indifferent”
segment markedly more engaged with the idea of online tools and resources. Some
95% of the “Channel indifferent” segment was drawn to the idea of interactive
personalised tools, while 89% liked the idea of downloadable resources and 93% the
idea of being able to ask advisers questions by email.
A significant minority of telephone clients are uncomfortable with online
advice
It is important to acknowledge that comfort with remote phone channels does not
necessarily translate into comfort with other remote channels such as online.
It is striking, that it was telephone advice clients who were most likely to say they
were uncomfortable with the idea of receiving debt advice online, with almost three in
ten (27%) being very or quite uncomfortable, compared with one in five (20%) faceto-face clients.
3.2.2
The perspective of the different channel segments
A segmented view of debt advice clients illustrates where there is greatest
potential for channel shift
Exploring the views of the different channel segments described in Chapter one of
this volume, provides greater insight into these broad attitudes to potential channel
shift and illustrates also those parts of the client base likely be most receptive to it. As
described in Chapter 1, it is clear from the segmentation analysis that in three of the
four segments, i.e. the “Channel Indifferent”, The “Low income channel ambivalent”
and the small “High income channel ambivalent” segments, a significant proportion
would have been open to receiving advice in a variety of ways. Equally it is clear that
in each of these three segments, together representing 59% of total clients, more
clients are receiving face-to-face than either want or require it. In each of these three
segments, a proportion of individuals have received face-to-face advice although
they would have been comfortable with, or would have preferred, using other
channels.
From a demand perspective, three of the four segments are over-served by
face-to-face channels relative to their expressed channel preference
The degree to which the various segments, on the basis of their expressed channel
preferences (as distinct from willingness to use an alternative channel), have been
over or under-served by the face-to-face channel is shown in Chart 10. Taking this,
20% more clients were being served in the face-to-face channel than actively wanted
face-to-face advice at the point they consulted debt advice. In the large “Face-to-face
affinity” segment, nine in ten of the three quarters of the segment who expressed a
preference for face-to-face advice, have had their preference met. By contrast, in the
“Channel indifferent segment”, where nine in ten were open to being served through
any channel, a third was served face-to-face. Among the “Low income channel
ambivalent”, 50% more people were served face-to-face than expressed a
preference for face-to-face delivery while in the “High income channel ambivalent”
segment, in which less than one in five expressed a preference for face-to-face
advice, almost twice as many people were served face-to-face than wanted a faceto-face service. It is clear therefore that for some segments of the client base, more
advice is being delivered face-to-face than is preferred by clients themselves.
31
Face-to-face channels are used by 20% more clients than actively want face-toface with over-use relative to need highest in the Channel Indifferent segment
Chart 12. Actual use of face-to-face channels relative to channel preference for face-to-face
advice prior to consulting debt advice – all and by segment
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
All debt advice users Affinity face-to-face
Channel indifferent Low income channel High income channel
ambivalent
ambivalent
0.5
0.0
1 = expressed preference for face-to-face matches face-to-face channel use
0.5 = 50% of those who wanted face-to-face actually used face-to-face
1.5 =50% more people used face-to-face than wanted face-to-face
The balance of importance of face-to-face and phone contact varies
considerably between segments
A high proportion of all segments value the anonymity of a phone call in consulting
debt advice, including in the “Affinity face-to-face” segment, where it is almost as
important as face-to-face contact. However, face-to-face contact is far less valued in
other segments, most notably in the “Channel indifferent segment” and the “High
income channel ambivalent segment”, both of which would seem important areas to
focus on when effecting a channel shift, together representing some 30% of total
clients. Almost half of both groups sourced their advice provider via the internet,
which would seem to provide an opportunity to reach out to these segments.
Phone contact is valued by all segments but face-to-face contact is far less
important for two segments, many of whom are now served face-to-face
Chart 13. Channel factors important in choosing a debt advice provider – anonymity of a phone
call versus face-to-face contact
100%
90%
80%
Being able to see
the adviser faceto-face
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Having the
anonymity of a
telephone call
10%
0%
All debt advice
users (504)
Low income
channel
ambivalent
(144)
Affinity face-toChannel
face (208)
indifferent (102)
High income
channel
ambivalent (50)
32
The “Channel indifferent” and “High income channel ambivalent” segments
would appear to represent good prospects for initial channel shift
These attitudes are reflected in the different segments’ receptiveness to phone based
advice (qualified as described earlier with the proviso that it was independent, from a
trusted organisation and delivered by a professional expert adviser). Almost two
thirds (64%) of the “High income channel ambivalent” and 77% of the “Channel
indifferent” were ““very comfortable” with this concept. This degree of comfort was
not confined to these segments, however. A little over half (55%) of the “Low Income
channel ambivalent” and slightly less than four in ten (38%) of the “Affinity face-toface” segment were also “very comfortable” with phone based advice delivered as
described. Significant proportions of each segment were also “quite comfortable” with
the idea of phone based advice delivery.
A significant minority of even the most face-to-face oriented segment is also
“very comfortable” with the idea of receiving debt advice by phone
Chart 14a. Comfort with having debt advice by
phone* by segment and degree of comfort
100%
Not at all
comfortable
90%
80%
Chart 14b. Very or quite comfortable with
phone channels for debt advice by
segment
100%
90%
80%
Quite
uncomfortable
70%
60%
70%
60%
Neither
comfortable nor
uncomfortable
50%
40%
50%
40%
30%
Quite
comfortable
20%
30%
20%
10%
Very
comfortable
0%
Affinity Channel High
Low
All debt
advice income face-to- indifferent income
users (504)channel face (208) (102) channel
ambivalent
ambivalent
(50)
(144)
10%
0%
High
Affinity Channel
Low
All debt
advice income face-to- indifferent income
users (504) channel face (208) (102) channel
ambivalent
ambivalent
(50)
(144)
*Provided you were talking to a trusted and independent
organisation and to a trained debt advice professional with
good people skills
Where individuals are comfortable with the phone for advice delivery, they
prefer phone to face-to-face, even for a first meeting with an adviser
The acid test of receptiveness to channel shift perhaps lies in clients’ willingness to
consider remote channels for the critical first interaction with a debt adviser, when
anxiety is at its highest, and where circumstances and difficulties are laid out for the
first time and rapport is established. Some 52% of the “Channel Indifferent” and 58%
of the “High Income channel ambivalent” would be comfortable with a phone based
first meeting with an adviser, in both cases a higher proportion than would be
comfortable with face-to-face, at circa four in ten.
A further 28% of the “Channel indifferent” and 22% of the “High Income channel
ambivalent” would also be comfortable with having a first debt advice intervention
online.
33
In the segments with greater affinity with face-to-face, a preference for face-toface does not seem to preclude comfort with having a first meeting by phone
The low income channel ambivalent segment shows a slightly stronger bias towards
face-to-face (53%) than phone for a first meeting face-to-face. Nonetheless, not far
from half (46%) would be comfortable with the phone and 14% with online channels
for a first meeting. Strikingly, however, half of even the “Affinity face-to-face” segment
would be comfortable with a first meeting by phone, while 18% would have been
prepared to meet online. Although their strong preference would have been for a
face-to-face meeting (77%), their degree of comfort with phone based meetings does
not appear very different to that of the other segments, even for the critical first debt
advice consultation. This would seem to reflect the pattern, discussed at some length
in volume one, in which those presenting to debt advice are in fact more concerned
with finding a solution to their problems than they are with the channel through which
advice is delivered.
Comfort with the phone for first meeting does not differ radically between
segments, albeit that first preferences vary significantly
Chart 15. Channels would have been comfortable for having first meeting / interaction with
adviser
100%
90%
Face-to-face
80%
70%
60%
50%
By phone
40%
30%
20%
10%
Online
0%
All debt advice
users (504)
Low income
channel
ambivalent
(144)
Affinity face-toChannel
face (208)
indifferent (102)
High income
channel
ambivalent (50)
There is a high degree of cross-over between those who are comfortable with
phone and online advice delivery
The segments that were “very comfortable” with phone based advice delivery were
also those most comfortable with receiving debt advice online (again, as qualified
earlier with the proviso that advice was independent and that an expert professional
adviser would be available by phone or email if needed). As earlier described,
comfort with an online proposition was lower than for a phone based service. Around
half of both the “Channel Indifferent” and “High Income channel ambivalent”
professed themselves “very comfortable”, at 53% and 46% respectively. Just a third
(32%) of the “Low income channel ambivalent” group and a little over a quarter (27%)
of the Affinity face-to-face group felt the same way.
34
Appetite for online advice is lower than for phone channels but some
segments, notably the “Channel Indifferent” are very open to online advice
Chart 16a. Comfort with receiving debt advice online*
by segment and degree of comfort
Chart 16b. “Very” or “quite”
comfortable with online channels for
debt advice
100%
100%
Not at all
comfortable
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
Quite
uncomfortable
60%
70%
60%
50%
50%
Neither
comfortable nor
uncomfortable
40%
30%
40%
30%
20%
20%
Quite
comfortable
10%
10%
0%
0%
Affinity Channel
High
All debt
Low
advice
income face-to- indifferent income
channel
users (504) channel face (208) (102)
ambivalent
ambivalent
(50)
(144)
Very comfortable
High
Affinity Channel
Low
All debt
advice income face-to- indifferent income
channel
users (504) channel face (208) (102)
ambivalent
ambivalent
(50)
(144)
Nonetheless, it is clear that some who are comfortable with phone channels
are resistant to a shift to online delivery
A key part of understanding the potential for channel shift lies with understanding
where the potential limits may lie and the scale and temperature of resistance. There
is clearly a high degree of cross-over between comfort with phone and online
channels. However, it is clear also that for a significant minority of those who might
be comfortable with a shift to phone based channels, online delivery is seen as a
quite different proposition and a step too far out of their comfort zone. This applies
most clearly in the two “channel ambivalent” segments, both high and low income, as
described above.
Active resistance to channel shift is low but is deeply felt among a minority in
both the “Affinity face-to-face” and “Channel ambivalent” segments
Overall, active resistance to a shift to phone delivered advice was low, at 12%,
(defined as being “quite” or “very” uncomfortable with the idea of phone advice). As
might be expected resistance was highest, at 19%, in the “Affinity face-to-face”
segment, but minimal, 2%, in the “Channel indifferent” segment. Active resistance to
online delivery (defined again as being very or quite uncomfortable with the idea of
online advice) was generally higher than for the phone channels. Resistance was
most concentrated in the “Low income channel ambivalent” segment, 17% of whom
said that they would be “very uncomfortable” and 12% “quite uncomfortable” with the
idea of receiving debt advice online, while one in five of the “High Income channel
ambivalent” were also “very uncomfortable” with the idea of online debt advice.
35
Resistance to phone and online channels varies significantly between
segments
Chart 17a. Resistance to phone channels for
debt advice – "very" or "quite" uncomfortable
with phone advice* by segment
Chart 17b. Resistance to online channels for
debt advice – "very" or "quite" uncomfortable
with online advice* by segment
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
All debt
advice uses
(504)
Low income
channel
ambivalent
(144)
Affinity faceto-face (208)
Channel
indifferent
(102)
High income
channel
ambivalent
(50)
*If you were talking to a trusted and independent
organisation and to a trained debt advice professional
with good people skills.
3.3
All debt
advice users
(504)
Low income
channel
ambivalent
(144)
Affinity faceto-face (208)
Channel
indifferent
(102)
High income
channel
ambivalent
(50)
*Provided that you were dealing with a tried and trusted
and independent organisation and that you could have
email or telephone access to a trained debt advice
professional if you wanted to.
More serious urgent and vulnerable cases
A key focus of channel strategy must be the protection of face-to-face for
those vulnerable service clients who need it
The analysis of the scale of vulnerability among debt advice clients – which is
described in Chapter 2 of this volume – suggested that, depending on how the
parameters of “vulnerability” were drawn, a definition of vulnerability could take in
somewhere between a little under a fifth to two thirds of all debt advice clients.
Understanding the issues as they arise for vulnerable service clients is thus key to
considering the potential for channel shift and the measures that may need to be put
in place to protect those with a range of vulnerability factors or facing the most
serious and urgent debt problems.
For some vulnerable service clients, face-to-face delivery will be essential. One of the
key concerns for the sector in considering channel strategy and the potential for
channel shift lies with protecting access to face-to-face channels for those who need
it.
For other vulnerable clients, the issues will lie more around facilitating access
to – and effective use of – remote channels for those who want them
For other vulnerable service clients, the issues may rather be about the additional
support which vulnerable clients may need if they are to be empowered to have full
access to remote channels and manage effectively within them – should they want to
do so.
Not all of those groups deemed vulnerable will need or want face-to-face debt advice,
however, and for some vulnerable groups, remote channels will have some
advantages.
36
This section examines both some of the practical limits on channel shifts and the
attitudes of potentially vulnerable groups and those with more or less serious and
urgent debt problems.
Chapter two posited six different more or less widely drawn interpretations of
vulnerability. These vulnerability groups rested in some cases on the basis of a range
of vulnerability factors, such as mental health issues, learning disability, numeracy,
literacy and confidence issues. In others, definitions were drawn on the basis of
being on a very low income or having no educational qualifications. Provision was
made within the definitions also for those facing the most urgent and serious debts,
involving imminent or threatened court or repossession action. This section describes
the requirement for face-to-face advice and the drivers for and barriers to channel
shift for each of these variously defined vulnerability groups. The charts contain
descriptive definitions of the various vulnerable groups. Readers seeking detail on
the definition of the various vulnerable groups are referred to chapter two.
Digital exclusion will itself be an issue for a deeply disadvantaged minority of
debt advice clients
Overall, some 86% of debt advice clients are digitally included, in the sense that they
have broadband internet access. There is, however, a minority of debt advice clients
who are deeply digitally excluded, and who may have access only to mobile phone,
often on pay as you go (PAYG) with limited credit, which will not lend itself to
anything other than brief conversations. Clearly having no access to a landline and
relying on a mobile phone on a PAYG contract, the latter being quite common among
those on low incomes, will limit the accessibility of phone based services and would
likely also greatly increase their cost to the user. Similarly, not having access to a
computer with broadband internet will render online advice impractical, regardless of
any capacity or confidence issues.
Digital exclusion appears to be lower among those with a range of specific
vulnerability factors than among those on very low incomes
Among the most vulnerable groups exhibiting a range of vulnerability factors but not
necessarily on the lowest incomes or lacking formal educational qualifications, digital
exclusion – in the form of lack of access to both the internet and landline telephony –
is in fact lower than for those deemed vulnerable simply on the basis of being on a
very low income (defined as falling into the lowest decile of household income).
Among those on the lowest incomes, a quarter are profoundly digitally
excluded – reliant on PAYG phones and without internet access
Lack of access to landline telephony peaks among those on very low incomes and
with the most serious debt at 25%, with the same proportion not having access to the
internet. If their counterparts with less urgent debt are included, lack of access to
landline telephone falls slightly, to 19%, but a quarter have no broadband internet
access.
For the vulnerable groups defined on the basis of the presence of a range of
vulnerability factors, 17% of those with the most serious and urgent difficulties have
no access to landline telephony, while 15% have no internet access. Including those
with less serious debt problems but the same vulnerability factors, the proportion
without a landline at home falls to a little over one in ten (12%) but again, 15% lack
broadband internet access.
37
Digital exclusion will preclude use of remote channels for a significant minority
of vulnerable clients, especially those on the lowest incomes
Chart 18a. No access to landline telephone by
vulnerability group
Chart 18b. No access to broadband internet by
vulnerability group
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Serious debt
and literacy /
numeracy /
confidence /
Learning
Disability /
Mental Health /
Addiction (59)
Serious debt
and very low
income or no
formal
educational
qualifications
(58)
All debt advice
Serious debt
users and
and vulnerability
literacy /
factors as 1 or
numeracy /
very low income
confidence /
or no formal
Learning
educational
Disability /
qualifications
Mental Health /
(89)
Addiction (125)
All debt advice All debt advice
users and very
users and
low income or
vulnerability
no formal
factors as 1 or
educational
very low income
qualifications
or no formal
(116)
educational
qualifications
(185)
Serious debt
and literacy /
numeracy /
confidence /
Learning
Disability /
Mental Health /
Addiction (59)
Serious debt
and very low
income or no
formal
educational
qualifications
(58)
All debt advice
Serious debt
users and
and vulnerability
literacy /
factors as 1 or
numeracy /
very low income
confidence /
or no formal
Learning
educational
Disability /
qualifications
Mental Health /
(89)
Addiction (125)
All debt advice All debt advice
users and very
users and
low income or
vulnerability
no formal
factors as 1 or
educational
very low income
qualifications
or no formal
(116)
educational
qualifications
(185)
There is little difference between the most vulnerable groups and all debt
advice clients in their affinity with face-to-face or attitudes to remote channels
As was described in chapter two, there is in fact little difference in the patterns of
channel use of the various vulnerable groups and other debt advice clients, albeit
that there is a greater concentration of those with serious difficulties in the face-toface channel, broadly in line with those with more serious difficulties more widely.
Equally, attitudes to the potential for channel shift do not differ greatly from those
within the wider population of debt advice clients. There are few significant variations
in this pattern between the vulnerable segments defined in different ways.
Those on very low incomes are a little more likely than those with multiple
vulnerability factors to seek face-to-face advice
The most disadvantaged group with multiple vulnerability factors and serious debt,
appear to have slightly less affinity with face-to-face channels than those on very low
incomes. Some 44% of the most disadvantaged group with serious debts wanted
face-to-face prior to seeking debt advice, compared to 52% of the group with the
most serious debts on very low incomes and no formal educational qualifications.
38
The groups defined on the basis of vulnerability factors are no more likely than
all debt advice clients to want face-to-face advice
Chart 19. Desire for face-to-face advice prior to seeking debt advice %
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Serious debt
and literacy /
numeracy /
confidence /
Learning
Disability /
Mental Health /
Addiction (59)
Serious debt Serious debt All debt advice
and very low
and
users and
income or no vulnerability
literacy /
formal
factors as 1 or numeracy /
educational
very low
confidence /
qualifications income or no
Learning
(58)
formal
Disability /
educational Mental Health /
qualifications
Addiction
(89)
(125)
All debt advice
users and very
low income or
no formal
educational
qualifications
(116)
All debt advice All debt advice
users and
clients
vulnerability
factors as 1 or
very low
income or no
formal
educational
qualifications
(185)
Three in ten of both those with multiple vulnerability factors and those on the
lowest incomes had no channel preference
Some 20% of the former group and 14% of the latter were actively seeking phone
channels with around 4% of both groups seeking online help. Three in ten of both
groups, however, “didn’t really mind” what channel they used.
The evidence is that the vulnerable groups are also over-served by face-to-face
channels relative to their expressed channel preference
In the event, six in ten of both groups were served face-to-face with around a third by
phone and slightly under one in ten online. This would suggest therefore that the
vulnerable groups are also being served within the face-to-face channel to a greater
extent than would be the case if channel use were to reflect channel preference.
Overall some 20% more debt advice clients are served in the face-to-face channel
than would be suggested by expressed channel preference at the point when debt
advice was first consulted. This over-representation is true also of the vulnerable
groups and is highest among the group with serious difficulties and multiple
vulnerability factors, 40% more of whom have been served face-to-face than initially
wanted face-to-face advice. This falls to 30% for all those with multiple vulnerability
factors rather than the most serious cases. For those on the lowest incomes, overrepresentation in the face-to-face column relative to expressed preference is 20%, in
line with debt advice clients overall.
39
The vulnerability group most over-served by face-to-face relative to channel
preference is that with serious debt and a range of vulnerability factors
Chart 20. Actual use of face-to-face channels relative to channel preference for face-to-face prior
to consulting debt advice – All and by vulnerability group
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
All debt advice Serious debt
users (504)
and literacy /
numeracy /
confidence /
Learning
0.6
Disabilty / M
Health / D or
Alc (89)
0.4
0.8
Serious debt Serious debt All debt advice
and very low
and
users and
income or no vulnerabilty
literacy /
formal
factors as 1 or numeracy /
educational
very low
confidence /
qualifications income or no
Learning
(91)
formal
Disabilty / M
educational
Health / D or
qualifications
Alc (222)
(139)
All debt advice
users and very
low income or
no formal
educational
qualifications
(213)
All debt advice
users and
vulnerabilty
factors as 1 or
very low
income or no
formal
educational
qualifications
(331)
0.2
0.0
There is a significant affinity with phone channels across the vulnerable
groups, particularly those with more serious and urgent debt
A little over half of all of the vulnerable groups with serious and urgent debt would be
comfortable with having a first meeting by phone, falling to a little less than half for
vulnerable groups as a whole, regardless of their debt position. The vulnerable
groups with the most serious and urgent debt are also more open to a first
intervention online, with a little over a quarter of these group comfortable with doing
so, falling to just under one in five for vulnerable clients overall.
Vulnerable groups with the most serious and urgent problems appear those
most inclined to consult an adviser for the first time remotely
Chart 21a. Willing to have first meeting /
interaction by phone or online by vulnerability
group
Chart 21b. Very or quite comfortable with
phone based channels for advice by
vulnerability group
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
By
phone
50%
40%
Online
60%
Quite
comfortable
50%
40%
Very
comfortable
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
All debt advice
Serious debt and Serious debt and Serious debt and All debt advice
users and literacy users and very
vulnerability
very low income
literacy /
low income or no
/ numeracy /
factors as 1 or
or no formal
numeracy /
formal
confidence /
very low income
educational
confidence /
educational
Learning
or no formal
Learning Disabilty qualifications (58)
qualifications
Disability / M
educational
/ M Health / D or
(116)
qualifications (89) Health / D or Alc
Alc (59)
(125)
All debt advice
users and
vulnerability
factors as 1 or
very low income
or no formal
educational
qualifications
(185)
Serious debt and Serious debt and Serious debt and All debt advice
All debt advice
All debt advice
literacy /
very low income
vulnerability
users and literacy users and very
users and
numeracy /
or no formal
factors as 1 or
/ numeracy /
low income or no
vulnerability
confidence /
educational
very low income
confidence /
formal
factors as 1 or
Learning
qualifications (58)
or no formal
Learning
educational
very low income
Disabilty / M
educational
Disability / M
qualifications
or no formal
Health / D or Alc
qualifications (89) Health / D or Alc
(116)
educational
(59)
(125)
qualifications
(185)
Online advice delivery also has appeal for a significant minority of even the
most vulnerable groups
There are also relatively high levels of support for online delivery, being highest in the
groups with the greatest vulnerability factors and most serious debt and lowest in
40
those with the lowest incomes. Some 38% of those with serious debts and greatest
disadvantage were “very comfortable” with online delivery, while 39% were “quite
comfortable”. Among their counterparts with the lowest incomes and no formal
qualifications, 35% were very comfortable and 35% quite comfortable with online
delivery.
Online advice delivery has greatest appeal for those with multiple vulnerability
factors and the most serious and urgent debt
Chart 22. “Very” or “quite” comfortable with online channels for debt advice by vulnerability
group
100%
90%
80%
70%
Very
comfortable
60%
50%
40%
Quite
comfortable
30%
20%
10%
0%
Serious debt and Serious debt and Serious debt and All debt advice
All debt advice
literacy /
very low income
vulnerability
users and literacy users and very
/ numeracy /
low income or no
numeracy /
or no formal
factors as 1 or
educational
very low income
confidence /
formal
confidence /
Learning Disability
educational
Learning Disability qualifications (58)
or no formal
educational
/ M Health / D or
qualifications
/ M Health / D or
Alc (59)
qualifications (89)
Alc (125)
(116)
All debt advice
users and
vulnerability
factors as 1 or
very low income
or no formal
educational
qualifications
(185)
Resistance to remote channels is also very similar to patterns within the wider
body of debt advice clients
Active resistance to remote channels is relatively low among the vulnerable groups
and is broadly in line with that among the wider advice user population. It ranges
from circa 11 – 16% across the variously defined vulnerable groups.
Absolute resistance to remote channels is low even among the most
vulnerable debt advice clients
Chart 23. Resistant to remote channels
100%
90%
80%
70%
Quite
uncomfortable
60%
50%
40%
Not at all
comfortable
30%
20%
10%
0%
Serious debt and Serious debt and Serious debt and All debt advice
All debt advice
All debt advice
literacy /
very low income
vulnerability
users and literacy users and very
users and
numeracy /
or no formal
factors as 1 or
/ numeracy /
low income or no
vulnerability
confidence /
educational
very low income
confidence /
formal
factors as 1 or
Learning
qualifications (58)
or no formal
Learning
educational
very low income
Disability / M
educational
Disability / M
qualifications
or no formal
Health / D or Alc
qualifications (89) Health / D or Alc
(116)
educational
(59)
(125)
qualifications
(185)
Taken together therefore, there would appear to be significant potential for channel
optimisation, so as to make more effective use of resources and bring channel
configuration more closely in line with demand and clients’ channel preferences.
Successful shift towards greater use of remote channels will need to rest on
41
leveraging and making best use of the current attributes of delivery which appear to
have been so effective in delivering positive outcomes and which are so greatly
valued by clients, i.e. professionalism, integrity, empathy and client rapport, tailored
and personalised service and effective support and communications.
The demand picture on channel shift is complex and requires a nuanced approach.
Generally, face-to-face delivery needs to be reviewed relative to changing need and
willingness to use, and appetite for, new channels. Some segments, notably the
“Channel Indifferent” and the “High Income channel ambivalent” would appear to
represent an early opportunity to achieve meaningful channel shift, not least because
their major entry point to advice appears to be the internet. Clearly, however, there
are clients who will continue to need face-to-face delivery and support, and some of
these are among the most vulnerable. Nonetheless, it is also clear that the equation
of client vulnerability and the need for face-to-face advice delivery is too simplistic to
be meaningful when considering client preferences. The evidence is that there is a
need to facilitate effective use and configure remote channels so that they are able to
deliver the support that many clients need.
42
4.0
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chapter 4. Conclusions and recommendations
The debt advice sector has been highly effective in delivering positive outcomes
for clients, delivering high standards of customer experience and outstanding
levels of satisfaction.
These results have been achieved across all channels with little significant
variation in performance between channels, once differences in client profiles
are allowed for.
Vulnerable clients and serous and urgent debt have been disproportionately
served in the face-to-face channel but all channels are serving these client
groups effectively and achieving similar outcomes,
It is clear that current channel configuration is primarily shaped by supply-side
factors. Face-to-face is over-represented in relation to demand by a factor of
circa 20%. This is true also for the most vulnerable client groups. A segmented
view of channel affinity demonstrates that face-to-face channel use is
particularly disproportionate in some large client segments.
It is clear that there is a continued need for face-to-face delivery to meet the
needs of some client groups who have no access to remote channels or who
would not be able to cope effectively with remote channels.
Many clients are however open to using a mix of channels and there is an
opportunity to achieve a significant shift to remote channels.
Recommendations
•
•
•
•
•
•
For the future, channel and service strategy should be primarily consumer and
evidence driven, rather than being shaped by the existing sector structure or
specific funding models. This would imply recognition that, in the right context,
remote channels can deliver as effective a debt advice service as face-to-face.
There needs also to be a clear client needs-driven strategy to protect an
appropriate level of face-to-face delivery, on a scale which reflects need for
face-to-face services. This should seek to strike a balance between optimal use
of resource and client needs.
It will be important that this strategy be owned by the debt advice sector as a
whole and that it is effectively communicated to stakeholders, including the
grass-roots.
A shared definition of the term “vulnerability” should be developed which
recognises that face-to-face is not appropriate for all vulnerable consumers.
Real benefits could be achieved by developing a sector-wide approach to
communications and the promotion of debt advice within a high profile
marketing and awareness building campaign that encompasses all channels
and focuses on those things debt advice clients find most valuable: integrity,
confidentiality, tailored advice and so on.
A holistic, cross-sector, channel-neutral and unified approach to “triage” at point
of entry to the sector needs to be developed to guide potential debt advice
clients efficiently to the most appropriate channels and solutions, thus
optimising resource and client outcomes.
43
4.1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conclusions
In this chapter, we draw together the conclusions arising from the research
described in this volume, focused on the potential for channel shift and in volume
one of this report. This describes the profile of debt advice clients, the dynamics
of channel choice and use, the client experience, the outcomes of debt advice
and client satisfaction with debt advice.
This research leads to a number of conclusions which underpin the
recommendations, below, which are intended to inform sector thinking around
channel strategy going forward and the effective achievement of channel
optimisation, itself requiring some channel shift.
First, it is clear that the debt advice sector has been highly effective in delivering
both positive outcomes for clients and creditors and very high levels of positive
client experience and outstanding satisfaction. Indeed, in many areas clients
report advice exceeding their expectations.
It is also clear that these results have been achieved across all channels, with
remarkably little variation in either outcomes, allowing for differences between
channels in client profile and the nature of presenting debt problems, or in the
quality of client experience and levels of client satisfaction. Outcomes in relation
to financial capability, effective money management and ability to handle credit
are also very positive and similar across channels.
It is also evident that vulnerable clients and those facing serious and urgent debt
have been served successfully in all channels, although vulnerable clients and
those with the most urgent debt are more likely to be found in face-to-face
channels.
A key conclusion of the research is that there is – and will continue to be – a
need for face-to-face debt advice for people who are unable to cope with remote
channels. Debt advice clients are overwhelmingly those on low incomes, with
close to nine in ten in the lowest income quartile. Digital exclusion alone,
concentrated disproportionately among those on low incomes, would indicate a
practical floor below which channel shift could not be taken but there are clearly
also a range of factors around not only vulnerable clients with specialist support
needs but also around a significant minority of clients’ ability to cope with difficult
issues and manage through crisis effectively without face-to-face support.
It is also evident, however, that there is scope for quite a significant shift to
remote channels, without adversely affecting the experience and outcomes of
debt advice, for a proportion of the current population of debt advice clients. The
research has also demonstrated that vulnerable clients do not always either need
or want face-to-face support and that their appetite for remote channels is not
very different to that of other debt advice clients.
As existing literature suggested would be the case, current channel configuration
appears to be shaped, primarily, by supply-side, rather than demand-side,
factors.
Clients do not necessarily bring strong channel preferences to seeking advice,
nor do they choose agencies on the basis of delivery channel. Awareness of debt
advice services and the different channels is very low and many are at crisis point
by the time they seek advice and therefore do not shop around.
It is clear also that, against this background, more clients are using face-to-face
channels than either need or want face-to-face service. On the basis of demand
alone, use of face-to-face channels appears to be some 20% higher than would
be justified by expressed channel preference. In some segments of the debt
advice client base, use of face-to-face channels is indeed twice and even three
44
•
•
•
•
4.2
•
•
•
•
•
times as high as expressed channel need. This is as true of vulnerable client
groups as it is of the wider debt advice population.
Many clients are open to – and already use – a mix of channels and a high
proportion are comfortable with remote channels, including those with a
preference for face-to-face, provided these meet needs in other respects
Key needs going forward are not channel-centric but are rather about factors –
integrity, independence, professionalism, effective personalisation, support, etc –
which can be delivered in remote as much as face-to-face channels.
It is clear that the majority of advice clients would be comfortable using remote
channels, as long as they were confident that advice was delivered to specific
standards and by trusted providers. In the first instance, it is clear that more
clients are open to phone than online channels, with differences also between
clients in how far they are comfortable with different models of online delivery.
The historic focus of the various advice services on a single channel and the lack
of centralised “triage” may not be making optimal use of resource and may be
working against serving clients in the channels most appropriate to their needs.
The future may need to be more about a smart mix of channels with specific
measures required to support vulnerable clients, those with the most urgent
needs and at specific stress points.
Recommendations
The conclusions outlined above bring us to a number of recommendations for
consideration by the sector and other stakeholders around the critical factors in
achieving the channel shift required to maintain a sustainable, high quality debt
advice service for the future.
Future channel strategy should be, primarily, consumer-driven, informed and
underpinned by evidence, rather than based on the existing structure and models
of provision within the sector.
In this context, the strategy, while maintaining a core of face-to-face advice
provision, should seek to achieve a gradual shift away from face-to-face
channels, largely towards telephone services, with scope for online advice to
meet the needs of growing numbers of people as this model of delivery, and
consumer knowledge of and trust in it, grows.
On the basis of the evidence in this report, the debt advice sector, as a whole,
should come together in collectively ‘owning’ remote delivery channels and
recognising them as being of equal value and potential for face-to-face advice.
While online debt advice has some way to go to catch up with telephone advice
services, which have been around longer and are much better established,
remote channels should not simply be seen as an alternative to face-to-face
advice where these services are overloaded. Rather, going forward, they should
be seen – when used by the right people in the right circumstances – as on a par
with face-to-face advice, delivering outcomes and satisfaction levels that are as
good as face-to-face services.
It is also critical that the debt advice sector develops a clear, consistent and
sustainable policy in relation to face-to-face debt advice provision, in terms of its
scale and nature going forward, and its target audience. This will ensure
continued provision of face-to-face debt advice services for people who need it. It
should also provide reassurance to consumers, the sector itself, and other
stakeholders that the sector continues to support face-to-face provision, as part
of a wider channel strategy that incorporates use of remote channels where this
does not impact adversely on outcomes or satisfaction levels.
45
•
•
•
•
•
Related to this, the debt advice sector needs to develop a shared definition of
‘vulnerability’ in relation to debt advice, recognising that face-to-face channels are
not necessarily suitable for all vulnerable consumers. Remote channels are the
preferred choice of some vulnerable consumers and can offer equal, or better,
outcomes in some circumstances. Consistency in the use and application of
emotive terminology, such as ‘vulnerable’ and ‘disadvantaged’ will underpin a
debt advice sector that is able to meet the needs of vulnerable consumers via
diversity in channel provision, matching people with the most suitable channels,
according to need.
The advice sector needs to develop a strategic, sector-wide approach to online
debt advice, incorporating clarity and consistency regarding products,
approaches and standards. Online advice is much less developed than telephone
and face-to-face services, but has the potential to meet the needs of more people
than it currently does by utilising a range of technologies, for example, ‘live chat’
and so on, increasing the level of personalisation on offer and facilitating the
development of a working relationship between the adviser and the client.
Coupled with the proactive communications campaign referred to above,
changes to the design and delivery of online advice could meet the needs of
many people currently using face-to-face and telephone services.
In addition, the sector should seek to develop and implement a large-scale
marketing strategy to promote remote debt advice channels, raise awareness of
them and reduce widely held misconceptions about what they can offer. A
majority of debt advice clients would be comfortable using remote channels for
debt advice, but awareness is currently far too low and misinformation too
widespread to drive proactive channel choice. The free advice sector has,
historically, been reluctant to divert resources away from service provision
towards marketing, not least for fear of generating levels of demand that exceed
capacity. As debt advice provision moves into a new era, with the advent of the
Money Advice Services’ coordinating role, it is time to develop a professional,
consumer-led approach to advertising and marketing that will enable people who
are comfortable with them to choose remote channels.
There needs also to be a proactive communications campaign within the debt
advice sector, and with external stakeholders. There is no doubt that some
individual debt advice agencies and advisers within them will be deeply
uncomfortable with the notion of channel shift, fearing that this will result in lower
levels of satisfaction and less than optimum outcomes. Working closely with
advice agencies and advisers at grassroots level, to promote understanding of
the research findings and generate a shared commitment to channel shift, will
pay dividends. In addition, it critical that external stakeholders, at local and
national level, are fully appraised of the evidence base underpinning new channel
strategy and are fully reassured that vulnerable consumers will not be left without
debt advice provision.
Finally, the debt advice sector needs to adopt a sector-wide approach to channel
shift, with a single point of entry and sector-wide triage approach, rather than one
which is fragmented across particular providers or parts of the sector. A sectorwide approach would be, by far, the most efficient and cost-effective approach to
channel shift. More importantly, however, it is the approach that will have the
most value and impact for consumers, who are largely unaware of distinctions
between different providers or structural divisions across the sector. This will,
without doubt, create significant challenges for the sector – raising issues of cobranding, cross-referral and partnership working.
46